Keep up with the ever changing world of IP with SpicyIP’s Weekly Review! Beginning April with a three-part post exposing the alarming lack of transparency surrounding public funds spent on indigenously developed COVID-19 vaccines, a two part post on the latest Kunal Kamra controversy and its copyright implications, and the difficulty in getting cancer related information in India. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
The Great Indian Cancer Information Treasure Hunt
With ‘estimates’ of 1.57 million new cancer incidences in India by 2025, public health priorities need to be realigned to ensure better access to treatment for all. But where does one begin? With some data points, we believe. Cancer incidences, approved drugs, and patents on them, to name a few. However, trying to gather useful data on the current Indian cancer information landscape is incredibly difficult. Swaraj Barooah and Md Sabeeh Ahmad narrate their journey looking for basic cancer information in India and some of the road bumps along the way.
[Part I] India’s Hypocrisy over the TRIPs Waiver During the Pandemic
In Part I, Prashant Reddy Thikkavarapu highlights the government’s hypocrisy during the pandemic—seeking a global TRIPS waiver before the WTO while simultaneously allowing the patenting of publicly funded COVID-related inventions in India and overseas.
[Part II] Public Money, Private Patents? Unravelling India’s Opacity over its COVID Vaccines
In Part II, Prashant recounts his struggle with the government, including his eventual litigation to access essential public documents related to government funding of COVID-19 vaccines.
In Part III, Prashant questions the Delhi High Court’s decision to invite a Bharat Biotech executive—who was actively involved in litigation at the time—as a guest for the 2023 World IP Day, raising important questions about judicial impropriety and the perception of justice.
[Part I] Fair Dealing or Foul Play? The Latest Kunal Kamra Controversy
Amidst protests from political parties over his recent stand-up set “Naya Bharat” and the looming threat of prosecution over jokes cracked on Maharashtra Deputy CM, Kunal Kamra faces new challenges in the form of copyright strikes on YouTube over this standup special. In this two-part post, Anjali Tripathi explains the controversy and discusses whether Kamra’s “jokes” can be protected under the fair dealing exception, in Part I.
[Part II] Fair Dealing or Foul Play? The Latest Kunal Kamra Controversy
Continuing the discussion on the Kunal Kamra controversy, Anjali dives into the free speech implications of this case, exploring how copyright enforcement is increasingly being weaponised to silence criticism.
Other Posts
TWN and the IUCIPRS, CUSAT are organising a five-day workshop on “Access to Medicines, TRIPS, and Patents in the Developing World” from May 30 to June 3, 2025, in Kochi, Kerala. The last date for submitting your application is April 6. The organisers will cover travel and accommodation expenses for all shortlisted applicants. For more details, read the post.
Case Summaries
The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs Ankit Sethi & Ors. on 2 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants seeking a decree of permanent injunction for infringement of its registered trademarks ‘GINGER’ and copyright infringement of the original professional photographs of its GINGER hotels. The defendants created fake websites mimicking the plaintiff’s ‘GINGER’ hotels to mislead customers. The Court held that the defendants’ actions constituted trademark infringement and passing off by using the ‘GINGER’ mark and misrepresenting their websites. Furthermore, the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s original photographs was deemed copyright infringement. The Court noted the defendants’ failure to appear and defend the claims as an admission of the plaintiff’s pleadings and therefore passed a decree of permanent injunction against them.
Chandra Shekhar Saboo vs Shiv Charan Sharma on 2 April, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff filed a case alleging trademark, copyright infringement and passing off. Trademarks PUKHRAJ and EMERALD are registered trademarks of the plaintiff. The defendant used Trademark “Panna Pukhraj” for sale of their product. The Court ruled that the defendant’s trademark is phonetically identical and deceptively similar, noting that “PANNA” means “EMERALD” in Hindi. The Court reasoned that the defendants’ trademark was likely to cause confusion. The plaintiffs’ evidence, including unchallenged testimony and reports from Local Commissioners who found infringed goods on the defendants’ premises, supported their claims and permanent injunction passed against the defendant.
M/S Rspl Limited vs Vimal Food Products on 29 March, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant for trademark, copyright infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendant’s mark “GHADI WALA with Device of GHADI” for eatables infringed upon their registered and well-known trademark “GHARI/GHADI with DEVICE OF GHARI/WATCH/CLOCK” for various goods. The Court, decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, reasoning that the defendant’s mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s, with “Ghadi” being the major element, and the addition of “wala” could not provide sufficient distinction. The Court also relied on the Local Commissioner’s report as evidence of infringement and concluded that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, thus warranting a summary judgment.
Endurance Technologies Ltd vs Guddu Kumar on 2 April, 2025 (Rohini District Court)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of the “Endurance” mark on counterfeit brake shoes constituted trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off, misleading consumers and diluting the plaintiff’s goodwill. The Court granted relief to the plaintiff observing that the defendant failed to appear despite service of summons and was proceeded ex parte. Relying on evidence, including seizure of 431 infringing goods, the Court found deliberate and repeated infringement. Citing Rule 20 of the IPD Rules, 2022 and the Koninlijke Philips judgment, it awarded ₹5,00,000 as damages, ₹50,000 in costs, and issued a permanent injunction restraining further misuse of the plaintiff’s mark.
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application titled “Method of generating hybrid/chimeric cells and uses thereof” under Sections 3(j) and 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had refused the application on grounds that the invention was essentially biological and lacked technical advancement. Endocell contended that the invention involved significant human intervention and could not be excluded under Section 3(j). The Court found procedural irregularities, including the absence of a Second Examination Report, and held that foreign patent grants were relevant. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, reinforcing the need for procedural compliance and a nuanced interpretation of patent exclusions.
Peak XV Partners Advisors India LLP & Ors vs John Doe & Ors on 26th March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sought to restrainthe defendant from passing off its trademark. The defendant was operating a fraudulent investment scheme using the deceptively similar name ‘PAK XV’ on its website, and mobile application. The Court admitted the averments made in the plaint considering the defendant neither filed any writer statement nor contested the claim despite an ad-interim injunction. The Court held that Peak XV Partners had established proprietary rights over their trademark and that the defendant’s actions clearly aimed to defraud the public by exploiting the plaintiff’s goodwill.
M/S. Mocemsa Care vs The Registrar of Trademarks on 26th March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order rejecting its trademark application. The application was rejected on the ground that the appellant sought registration over common general words along with an exclamation mark in between. The Court reasoned that despite the use of common English words, the application was for a device mark with a composite stylized arrangement, which appeared distinctive when considered as a whole. The Court also considered examples of other trademarks containing common words that had been granted registration and set aside the impugned order.
Burberry Limited vs Rajesh Kumar on 1st April, 2025 ( Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark, copyright infringement and passing off. The Court proceeded ex-parte against the defendant as they did not appear or file a written statement. The plaintiff’s claim was uncontested and was supported by the Local Commissioner’s report, which found counterfeit Burberry goods at the defendants’ premises. The Court held Burberry to be the registered owner of trademarks including BURBERRY and BURBERRY EQUESTRIAN KNIGHT and the defendant used identical or deceptively similar trademarks therefore constitutes infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyright.
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Salman and Anr on 29th March, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff instituted a suit against Salman (defendant no.1) and Jagdish Chand (Defendant no. 2) alleging trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and sought damages, delivery of infringing goods, and a permanent injunction. The Court appointed local commissioner seized infringing goods from the premises of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 filed a written statement, and the matter was settled by mediation. However, the Defendant no. 1 neither filed a written statement nor appeared in Court. The Court based on unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff and the local commissioner’s report held that defendant no. 1 had infringed the plaintiff’s trademark.
The respondent had alleged that the appellant infringed its “MAX” trademarks. Initially, the district court denied an injunction against the appellant. The respondent appealed against this order and the High Court disposed of the matter and ordered the commercial court to reconsider the matter. Subsequently, the commercial court granted the injunction without assessing the merits believing it was implementing the High Court observations. The appellant appealed against the commercial court order and the High Court found that the commercial court made an error by not looking into the merits of the case as directed by the High Court earlier. Therefore, the High Court set aside the commercial court order and ordered a reconsideration of the prayer for interim injunction de novo.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab vs Sanvik Coresoft Llp on 27 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of “SANVIK” constituted trademark infringement and passing off, misleading consumers by closely resembling “SANDVIK.” The Court granted relief to Sandvik Intellectual Property AB, noting the defendant’s failure to respond despite legal notices and the plaintiff’s established goodwill in India since 1950. The Court emphasized trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act, referring to precedents on deceptive similarity and consumer confusion. It reinforced that the defendant’s continued use of the mark constituted deliberate infringement and that uncontested evidence strengthened the plaintiff’s case.
Mankind Pharma Limited vs Preet Kamal Grewal And Anr on 2 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of “KINDPAN” constituted trademark infringement, creating consumer confusion. The Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, citing the defendant’s failure to contest the claims and the unchallenged evidence of prior use and goodwill of the “MANKIND” and “KIND” marks. It emphasized protection under the Trade Marks Act, referencing principles of acquired distinctiveness and likelihood of confusion. The Court noted that the defendant’s non-participation led to an admission of Mankind Pharma’s claims by default. The judgment reaffirmed that established brands can prevent dilution and unauthorized use of distinctive trademark elements.
Tag Heuer S.A vs Remi Impex And Ors on 28 March, 2025 (District Court Patiala)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ use of “TAG HEUER” and “TAG” constituted trademark infringement, leading to consumer deception. The Court granted relief to the plaintiff citing the defendants’ failure to contest the claims and the unchallenged evidence, including customs reports on counterfeit goods. The Court emphasized jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, referring to World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection and Renaissance Hotel Holdings v. B. Vijaya Sai. It reinforced that interactive websites targeting Indian consumers establish jurisdiction and that uncontested evidence strengthens a plaintiff’s case.
Burberry Limited vs Sunil B. Sharma on 28 March, 2025 (District Court Patiala)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of “RF BROWNBERRY” was deceptively similar to its trademarks “BURBERRY” and “BURBERRY BRIT,” leading to consumer confusion. The Trial Court found phonetic and visual similarities, emphasizing that infringement is assessed from an average consumer’s perspective. As the defendant failed to present a defense, the Court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. A permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendant from using the mark. Additionally, the Court awarded ₹2,00,000 in damages and imposed litigation costs on the defendant.
Under Armour Inc. vs Ashwani & Anr. on 29 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner, sought the removal of trademark registration No. 5372621 for the mark “AU” in Class 25, alleging it was deceptively similar to its registered “UA” trademarks. The petitioner demonstrated prior use since 1996 and extensive brand recognition in India and globally. Despite multiple notices, the respondent failed to appear or file a reply. The Court found the impugned mark visually and phonetically similar to “UA,” leading to consumer confusion and passing off. Consequently, the Court ordered the cancellation of the impugned registration, directing the Trademark Registry to rectify its records and issue a notification.
Loreal S.A. vs Ashok Kumar And Others & Ors on 29 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark and copyright infringement, seeking an injunction, damages, and other reliefs. The defendant impersonated the plaintiff’s employees and misled consumers via a rogue website, causing reputational and financial harm. The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant from using the fraudulent website and email addresses. As the defendant failed to appear or file a response, the Court proceeded ex-parte, noting that L’Oreal’s claims were unchallenged. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of L’Oreal, granting summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. vs Malla Rajiv on 29 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The defendant was found guilty of trademark infringement and passing off by selling “JK COPPER+ WATER,” which was identical to the plaintiff’s “TATA COPPER+ WATER” product. The defendant also did not have any registered trademark for the same. The defendant did not enter the proceedings. The Court, relying on the Local Commissioner’s report, awarded damages of Rs. 10,00,000.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs Viraj Harjai & Anr. on 31 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal of ‘PURPLLE TREE’ trademarks (Classes 14 & 4) owned by Doyita Dreams. The petitioner, operating ‘PURPLLE’ since 2011, argued that the impugned marks were deceptively similar and adopted in bad faith. The Court noted that ‘PURPLLE TREE’ incorporated ‘PURPLLE’ entirely, making it likely to cause consumer confusion. Despite being served notices, the respondent failed to appear or justify its trademark use. Citing legal precedents, the court found the adoption dishonest and ordered the removal of the impugned trademarks.
Psychotropic India Limited vs Meridian Medicare Ltd And Anr on 31 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner sought cancellation of respondent no.1’s trademark “TROMA” under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, claiming prior use and ownership of similar marks like TROMANIL, TROMA PLUS, and TROMAZIN since 1997. The petitioner argued that “TROMA” is a dominant part of its trademarks and that respondent no.1’s adoption is deceptive and intended to encash its goodwill. Respondent no.1, however, asserted legitimate registration and continuous use since 2003-2004. The Court, citing precedents, emphasized prior user rights, phonetic similarity, and dishonest adoption, thus favoring the petitioner and allowing the rectification petition.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Advika and Sushant for the case summaries.)