The Prada Kolhapuri Chappals fiasco, thoughts on alternative prizes for sickle cell treatment and analysis on the US judgements on the GenAI- copyright debate. This and much more in our weekly roundup of our blog posts, case summaries, and top IP developments in the country and the world. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
The Devil Wears Kolhapuri or Prada? Understanding GI Law, Cultural Appropriation & More
The recently unveiled Prada Spring/Summer 2026 collection made headlines in India for all the wrong reasons. While “plagiarism” in fashion is not uncommon domestically and internationally, this instance brought focus to a GI-tagged product – the humble Kolhapuri Chappals. Tanishka Goswami and Shikhar Aggarwal in this post point out that there is no question of GI infringement here and also discuss the implications on GI law and policy by this development.
Notes from the Doctoral Diary: 16th Annual Workshop of ISHTIP (25-26 June 2025)
Lokesh Vyas recently attended ISHTIP—the 16th Annual Workshop of the International Society for the History and Theory of Intellectual Property in Madrid. He shares his experience as well as his co-authored presented work on attempts to trace the emergence and legitimisation of IP especially copyright law, basing his investigation on the Berne Convention. He concludes that IP becomes not just a regulatory tool but a very condition of our thought and the way we experience information regulation.
Other Posts
Hear! Hear! Prizes Worth Crores for Bringing New Blood into Sickle Cell Innovation
On World Sickle Cell Day, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs unveils the Bhagwan Birsa Munda Prize, offering up to ₹10 crore to spur Sickle Cell Disease drug development. Arnav Kaman in this piece analyses this recent initiative and how it challenges profit-driven patents, fostering affordable, diverse treatments for SCD.
On the recent decisions by the Court in the Northern District of California on the Copyright vs. Gen AI debate, Akshat Agrawal highlights the conflicting findings of the judges on fair use in this two-part post. In Part I, he examines the disagreement between the judges on the ‘lawfully acquired first copy’ requirement under the fair use exception, from the lens of the Indian Copyright law.
Following the discussion on Judge Alsup and Judge Chhabria’s findings in Anthropic and Meta cases respectively on lawfulness of the acquired copy, Akshat Agrawal in Part II discusses the findings on the market dilution theory.
Case Summaries
M/S Crocs Inc Usa vs M/S Bata India & Ors on 1 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present appeal is against the order dated 18.02.2019, wherein the Single Judge dismissed all five suits instituted by the Appellant, alleging infringement by the Defendants of its registered footwear design and passing off through the adoption of a similar trade dress. The Single Judge held that a suit for passing off was not maintainable, as the registered design could not be simultaneously protected as a trademark or trade dress, as per Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. The Division Bench, however, noted that passing off is a common law right, independent of the Designs Act. The Court held that the Single Bench erred in dismissing the case prematurely, without adjudicating on merits. Accordingly, the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court.
The present suit challenged the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the Commercial Court, which stayed proceedings in an original suit and counter-claim relating to the use of the trademark. The Petitioners contended that the suit was for a permanent and prohibitory injunction and not for trademark infringement, and therefore, Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was not applicable. The High Court upheld this view and noted that the rectification applications had been incorrectly filed before the Registrar, in contravention to Section 125(1), and had not been referred to the High Court as required under Section 125(2). Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Commercial Court’s order, holding it to be bad in law and unsustainable.
Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit sought the renewal of Petitioner’s trademark ‘JAGAT’ (device) bearing application No. 01253200 in Class 30. The Petitioner contended that the Respondents failed to issue Form O-3, which is a mandatory statutory notice informing the proprietor of the approaching expiration of its trademark. The Delhi High Court accepted the Petitioner’s contention noting that the Respondents had not provided any evidence or proof of service. Accordingly, the Court directed the Respondents to issue the Certificate of Renewal, restore the Petitioner’s trademark registration, and make corrections in their database, subject to the Petitioner completing the necessary formalities.
N.C. Mahamood vs The Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai on 25 June, 2025 (Kerala High Court)
The present suit challenged the prolonged delay in the hearing of the Petitioner’s trademark application, filed in 2019. The opposition to the application and the counter reply was submitted in March 2020, yet no further action was taken by the Respondents for six years. The Respondents contended that they were adhering to the principle of ‘Priority to the First Arrivals’, and that the Petitioner could either wait or expedite its application under Rule 34 of the Trademark Rules, 2017 by paying a special fee. The Kerala High Court rejected this argument, holding that such a delay could not be excused and that the Petitioner could not be insisted to pay a special fee for an expeditious process. Accordingly, the Court directed the Registrar to conduct the hearing expeditiously and complete the entire process within three months.
Emami Limited vs Dabur India Limited on 2 July, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The present appeal is against the order dated 17.01.2025, wherein the Single Judge modified a prior ad interim injunction, restraining the Defendant from airing an advertisement that disparaged the Appellant’s products ‘Dermi Cool’ and/or ‘Navratna’, by depicting a similar bottle and referring to it as ‘Sadharan’ or ordinary. The modified order broadened the injunction to restrain the entire advertisement, following which, the Respondent revised their advertisement to display a different bottle. In appeal, the Division Bench rejected the Appellant’s claim of a high recall value amongst the consumers, holding that there was no visual resemblance between the bottles and that the word ‘Sadharan’ was used in a generic sense. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the modified injunction was upheld.
Dong Yang Pc, Inc vs Controller Of Patents And Designs on 1 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
An appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of Dong Yang Pc, Inc.’s patent application for a “Vertical Rotary Parking System”. The case significantly clarifies the legal standards for “inventive step” under the Patents Act, particularly distinguishing between a patentable invention and a “mere workshop modification,” and outlines the conditions for amending patent specifications. The appellant contended their system’s reconfigured coupling elements offered technical advancements like reduced noise and enhanced safety, making it non-obvious, and argued against the refusal of their amendment application. Conversely, the Controller asserted these changes were merely an obvious reversal of parts lacking inventive merit, which justified the rejection and refusal of amendments. The court ultimately remanded the case, emphasising that simplicity does not preclude patentability, “obviousness” claims require robust substantiation, and applicants have a right to amend specifications in response to newly cited prior art.
A suit was filed by the plaintiff, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing Indian Patent No. 240893 related to cellular base station products. The primary legal question addressed is the application of the Court’s inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to direct the defendants to deposit a bank guarantee. The plaintiff argued for the deposit, citing the significant damages claimed, the foreign nature of the primary defendants, and the absence of a reciprocal arrangement between India and South Korea for decree enforcement, coupled with the defendants’ limited assets in India. The defendants countered that South Korea’s domestic law allows for foreign judgment recognition, they had already deposited a substantial amount (approximately Rs. 70 Crores), and such an interim relief amounting to a final relief should only be granted in rare and exceptional cases.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc vs Manish Vijay & Ors on 1 July, 2025 (DELHI HIGH COURT).
A rectification petition was filed by Major League Baseball Properties Inc. (MLB) seeking the cancellation of the trademark ‘BLUE-JAY’, registered in Class 25, in favor of Manish Vijay & Ors., trading as M/s. PMS Creations. MLB contended that it was the ‘prior adopter’ and ‘prior user’ of the ‘BLUE JAYS’ marks globally since 1976, which had acquired substantial reputation and goodwill, including spill-over into India through broadcasts and website accessibility, making the ‘BLUE JAYS’ marks well-known. MLB further argued that the respondent’s adoption of the ‘BLUE-JAY’ mark in 1998 for identical goods was dishonest and in ‘bad faith’ to ride on their reputation, as evidenced by contradictory explanations for its adoption and its deceptive similarity to MLB’s mark. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed independent and good faith adoption of ‘BLUE-JAY’ in 1998, asserting that MLB had no spill-over reputation in India and that they were the prior users in Class 25 in India. The High Court of Delhi ultimately found that the respondent’s adoption of ‘BLUE-JAY’ was tainted with dishonesty and bad faith. The Court concluded that MLB was the undisputed ‘prior user’ and ‘prior adopter’ worldwide, establishing superior rights over the respondents, regardless of whether MLB held a current registration in Class 25 in India at the time of the dispute. Consequently, the Court ordered the cancellation and removal of the ‘BLUE-JAY’ trademark from the Register of Trade Marks.
Vip Industries Ltd vs Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr on 1 July, 2025 (DELHI HIGH COURT)
Cross-suits between VIP Industries Ltd (Appellant) and Carlton Shoes Ltd (CSL, Respondent) seeking permanent injunctions against each other’s use of the trade mark CARLTON was filed by the parties. The central legal issue clarified by the court is the concept of “goodwill” for passing off actions, specifically whether it must be established in the mark generally or only in the mark as used for specific goods or services. VIP argued for its prior use and goodwill for CARLTON in luggage, while CSL claimed priority of registration and use for the CARLTON mark in India, primarily for footwear, handbags, and purses. The court affirmed that goodwill resides in the name or mark per se, not exclusively in the mark as applied to specific goods, and upheld the territoriality principle requiring goodwill to be established in India. The court found that CSL had established prior use and sufficient goodwill in India, dismissing VIP’s appeals and upholding the injunction against VIP’s use of the CARLTON mark for Class 18 goods.
An appeal primarily concerning trademark infringement and passing off of pharmaceutical products under the Trade Marks Act 1999 was filed before the Court. Modi-Mundipharma (appellant-plaintiff) alleged that Speciality Meditech Pvt Ltd. (manufacturer) and Preet International Pvt Ltd. (marketer) (respondents-defendants) infringed their registered trademarks FECONTIN-F and the CONTIN family of marks by using FEMICONTIN. The High Court clarified that mere delay does not defeat the grant of an injunction in trademark infringement cases, the “family of marks” concept is applicable to infringement actions, and actual confusion is not required to be proven, only the likelihood of confusion, particularly with a stricter standard applied to medicinal products. The appellant argued for deceptive similarity and dishonest adoption of the mark, while the respondents contended their mark was descriptive and that the suit was barred by delay, laches, and acquiescence.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction for copyright infringement and passing off concerning the insecticide mark “PADAN.” The Delhi High Court held that the Plaintiffs lacked locus standi, as the rights in the mark and packaging copyright belonged to Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd. (CAPL) a separate legal entity under liquidation not the Plaintiffs. The documents showed that CAPL alone held a non-exclusive license from the Defendants, who remained the registered proprietors of the mark “PADAN.” The Plaintiffs failed to establish any independent sales, goodwill, or proprietary rights in the mark. Consequently, the Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that it disclosed no real cause of action.
The Plaintiff, a private limited company and subsidiary of IEEE entities, filed a suit against the Defendant, the IEEE Mumbai Section (a registered trust), alleging breach of service assistance agreements and unauthorised use of the ‘IEEE’ trademark after termination. The Defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, citing absence of cause of action, a bar under Sections 50 and 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and lack of locus as the Plaintiff was not the trademark proprietor. The Karnataka High Court held that the Plaintiff’s claims arose from contractual rights, not matters of trust administration, and thus were not barred by the MPT Act. It further noted that the existence of a cause of action involved mixed questions of law and fact, which could not be summarily decided. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court’s rejection of the plaint, and restored the suit for adjudication on merits.
Amazon Technologies Inc vs Lifestyle Equities Cv & Anr on 1 July, 2025 (DELHI HIGH COURT).
An appeal by Amazon Technologies Inc. (Appellant) against a judgment decreeing over ₹336 crores in damages and costs to Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr. (Respondents) for alleged trademark infringement was filed before a division bench of the Court. The legal proceedings primarily clarify aspects of Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs the stay of execution of money decrees by an Appellate Court. Amazon Tech argued that the colossal damages were awarded without supporting pleadings, direct evidence of its involvement in the infringement, proper service of summons, or notice of the drastically enhanced claim. Lifestyle contended that the plaint contained sufficient allegations against Amazon Tech, that their involvement was established through evidence, and that specific prior quantification of damages was not strictly necessary.
Dabur India Limited & Anr. v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr. on 3rd July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, Dabur, filed a suit against Patanjali seeking injunctions against TV and print advertisements for “Patanjali Special Chyawanprash,” alleging disparagement of Dabur’s product and the entire Chyawanprash category. Dabur claimed the ads falsely projected Patanjali’s product as uniquely Ayurvedic while implying others, especially Dabur’s, were “ordinary” for using only 40 herbs. The Court found such claims misleading and disparaging, noting that Chyawanprash is a classical Ayurvedic formulation governed by statutory texts, with no scope for “ordinary” or “special” distinctions based on herb count. Finding a prima facie case, the Court granted interim relief and directed Patanjali to remove the offending claims.
Kamterter Products LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents on 26th June, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The present case involves an appeal against rejecting a patent application for a “SEED TESTING METHOD AND APPARATUS” by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Appellant argued that the rejection of the patent application lacked any reasoning and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court, while noting the absence of explicit reasons in the impugned order, set aside the decision and remanded the matter back to the Controller of Patents. The Controller is directed to re-evaluate the application within two months, with all issues remaining open for consideration on their merits.
Shaperon Inc. v. The Controller General of Patents and Designs, Mumbai & Anr., on 26th June, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The present appeal concerned a patent application for a “Biological Surfactant as Anti-inflammatory agent and Tissue Preservative Solution”. The primary issue was the violation of principles of natural justice, as the Deputy Controller failed to consider expert evidence from Dr. Seung-yong Seong. The Deputy Controller further admitted to this omission. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order. It remanded the case for a fresh decision within three months, mandating the consideration of the ignored affidavit, without adjudicating on the merits.
Avient Switzerland Gmbh v. Treadfast Ventures & Anr. on 1st July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present appeal challenged the refusal of Avient Switzerland GMBH’s trademark ‘RENOL’ under Class 2 and the allowance of an opposition by the registered proprietor of ‘REINOL’ under Classes 1 and 3. The Delhi High Court found that the Assistant Registrar erred by allowing the opposition based solely on the Opponent’s averments, as the Opponent admittedly failed to provide any evidence of use for their mark. Conversely, the Appellant had submitted evidence of prior use since 2001, which was ignored. Emphasising that the onus to prove proprietorship and use in opposition proceedings lies with the Opponent, the Court set aside the impugned order. The case was remanded to the Registrar of Trade Marks for a fresh adjudication on merits within six months.
M/S Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited & Ors. on 1st July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present case involved a trademark dispute wherein Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Plaintiff sought to restrain Nilkamal Pvt. Ltd., Defendant no. 2 and Stella Industrial Co. Ltd., Defendant no. 5 from using the ‘STELLA’ mark, alleging infringement of their registered mark ‘STELLADEXIN’. The Court determined that Defendant No. 5, Stella Industrial Co. Ltd., was the prior adopter and user of the ‘Stella Marks’ in India since 2013, predating the Plaintiff’s use and registration. Consequently, the Court vacated the ex parte interim injunction against the defendants, citing the defence of prior user under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the principle of international exhaustion, thereby allowing them to continue selling products under the ‘STELLA’ and ‘STELLADEXIN’ marks.
Kroll Information Assurance LLC v. The Controller General of Patents on 1st July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In the present case, the Appellant, Kroll Information Assurance LLC, challenged the Controller’s refusal of its patent application titled “A System, Method and Apparatus to locate at least one type of person, via a Peer-to-Peer Network.”The Controller had rejected the application on three grounds: (i) the amended claims exceeded the scope of the original disclosure under Section 59; (ii) lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j); and (iii) exclusion under Section 3(k) as a mere computer program or algorithm. The Court permitted the amended claims, holding that they were explanatory and narrower, thus complying with Section 59. However, it upheld the rejection under Section 3(k), finding that the invention merely used known search functions in software without contributing any technical advancement or effect on hardware. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the patent remained refused.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v. LMW Ltd. on 1st July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In the present case, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent IN759, which relates to a fibre bundle concentrating apparatus in spinning machines with grooves ≥0.04 mm depth to reduce cotton fly accumulation. The Defendant denied infringement and challenged the patent’s validity, citing lack of novelty and inventive step based on prior art and prior use. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain further use. However, the Delhi High Court held that since IN759 expired on 24.05.2025, its subject matter had entered the public domain, and no injunction could be granted. The Court directed the Defendant to disclose manufacture and sales details during the patent’s term to assess potential damages.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Neha, Sumit, Vasundra and Yohann for the case summaries.)