It’s a week of new beginnings!
SpicyIP is organising the 1st National Policy Brief Competition on IP and Innovation with CIPAM, DPIIT with December 14, 2025 as submission deadline. Following up on the SpicyIP TV Summer School Edition, we have launched our main channel – “Let’s IPsa Loquitur”. The first episode on the now famous (or infamous?) personality rights is already up! And a critique of the SC’s decision in Novenco v. Xero on pre-litigation mediation in IP cases. 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
SpicyIP, in collaboration with the Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM)-DPIIT, is thrilled to announce the 1st National Policy Brief Competition on Intellectual Property & Innovation 2025! The competition invites students to engage with real-world challenges on SEPs and trade secrets, and propose impactful, policy-driven solutions. Shortlisted teams will advance to online and in-person rounds, judged by leading experts in IP policy, academia, and practice. Prize Pool of ₹2,00,000 + trophies & certificates! Details in the announcement.
Let’s IPsa Loquitur: The Personality Rights Debacle – Whose Face Value Is It Anyway?
Regular readers (and now, viewers!) would’ve seen the launch of our SpicyIP TV series with the Summer School edition. Building on that, we’re delighted to announce the launch of what we hope will become our main SpicyIP TV channel — “Let’s IPsa Loquitur”! Kicking things off, Tanishka Goswami hosts the first episode in our Let’s IPsa Loquitur series, joined by Adyasha Samal and Akshat Agrawal, to discuss some ongoing developments that everyone in the IP world has surely taken note of — the surge in “Personality Rights” cases. Check out the episode and read Swaraj Barooah’s post on the series!
Novenco v. Xero: Do IP Cases Get a Free Pass to Bypass Sec 12-A?
“The recent decision of the SC in Novenco Building and Industry v. Xero Energy Engineering [re: pre-litigation mediation] seems to have been well taken. Comments online have showered praised over the decision for striking the right balance between procedural lapse and substantive justice. Writing on this blog for over 2 years now, I have learnt one important lesson- the outcome must never shift one’s focus away from the reasoning.” Yogesh Byadwal states as he goes into the reasoning in this recent SC order. (Spoiler alert: He finds several issues with said reasoning)
Other Posts
Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes : Section 106 Steps Out of the Shadows
In Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 106 of the Patents Act, which deals with groundless threats, and held that such an action stands independently of an infringement suit. Explaining the decision and how it resolves years of ambiguity around the provision, Hafsah Azhar Ansari discusses its implications and how it differs from similar provisions in the Copyright and Trademark Acts.
Case Summaries
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) issued an order restraining Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories from using the word “ORS” in naming its Rebalanz VITORS drink. Challenging this, Dr. Reddy’s filed a petition arguing that this order would cause heavy financial loss, as large product quantities remained in stock and distribution. The Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the FSSAI’s decision, citing the potential adverse health effects that may arise. However, it did grant Dr. Reddy’s liberty to approach the FSSAI for approval to rebrand and sell the products without using the term “ORS.”
Suparshva Swabs India vs Agn International & Ors on 3 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Suparshva Swabs India, which owned the “TULIP” trademark for cotton buds and allied hygiene goods, had sought an ad-interim injunction against Agn International for using the mark “AGN TULIP” in relation to fragrance products. However, the Delhi High Court observed that both marks were registered and held that an infringement action would not lie. Further, since “TULIP” had not acquired secondary meaning in the perfume or fragrance category, nor did it have goodwill beyond limited markets, the Court found no prima facie case of passing off or claim of a well-known mark and had accordingly dismissed the application.
The founder of Novalife Consultancy, which owns the “NOVALIFE” wordmark, had entered into a partnership with Bharat Sachdeva, allowing the partnership to use the mark for business purposes. After the partnership was formally dissolved, Novalife discovered that Bharat had begun using the trademark “NOVVALIFE” for similar services and filed a suit for infringement. The Delhi High Court noted the visual, phonetical, structural, and deceptive similarity between “NOVVALIFE” and “NOVALIFE” and held that a prima facie case of infringement was made out. Accordingly, an ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of Novalife.
The Appellant, Mylan Laboratories Limited, challenged the order dated 16.07.2025 under Section 117A of the Patents Act 1970, wherein the Respondent No.2 under Section 25(4), rejected the Post-Grant Opposition filed by the Appellant against Respondent No.1, i.e.. Celator Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Patent No. IN 315447. The Delhi High Court issued a notice and asked the Respondents to file a reply within six weeks.
Glorious Investment Limited vs Dunlop International Limited & Anr on 4 November, 2025 (Calcutta HC)In an important clarification, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that an appeal from an order of a Single Judge under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not lie to a division bench. The matter arose from a dispute over registration of the mark ‘DUNLOP’, where the Single Judge had set aside the Deputy Registrar’s order allowing registration and remanded the matter for reconsideration. Disagreeing with the DHC’s contrary view in Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse, the Court held that an intra-court appeal was barred under Section 100A of the Civil Procedure Code and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Reliance Industries Limited vs Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit was a joint application filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 21 under Order XXIII Rule 3, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which sought a permanent injunction against the Defendants for using the trademarks ‘RELIANCE’ and ‘JIO’. During the course of the proceedings, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 21 amicably settled the matter, with Defendant No. 21 undertaking to cease all use of identical or deceptively similar marks, trade dress, and packaging, and also agreed to destroy all infringing material. Defendant No. 21 also paid Rs. 1,00,000 towards Plaintiff’s costs and legal expenses. The High Court recorded the settlement and decreed the suit qua Defendant No. 21.
The present suit sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendant for using the Plaintiff’s well-known trademarks ‘LOTUS’, ‘LOTUS SALON DE BEAUTE’ and its variants, used for beauty and skincare products. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was using the mark ‘LOTUS SALON’ for salon services, and thus had caused confusion and infringed Plaintiff’s registered marks. The Delhi High Court held that a prima facie case of triple identity was made out, wherein the mark, the product category and trade channels and the consumer base are identical. Thus, the Court restrained the Defendant from using the infringing marks and granted an ex parte interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff.
In the case Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co KG vs The Controller Of Patents & Anr, the Appellant filed an LPA challenging the learned Single Judge’s findings on two preliminary issues related to the maintainability of a patent revocation petition against the Respondents. The Delhi High Court (Division Bench) stayed the operation of the impugned order upon finding prima facie inability to agree with the Single Judge’s holding that a revocation petition could continue even after the patent had expired by afflux of time. Furthermore, the court held that the very concept of revocation would prima facie imply the subsistence of the patent of which revocation is sought, noting that it is difficult to understand the concept of revoking an expired patent.
M/S M E Testing Laboratory vs M/S M E Technology on 1 November, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of the name “M.E. Technology” infringed and passed off the plaintiff’s earlier mark “M.E. Testing Laboratory (METL)”. The court found that the plaintiff could not establish user prior to 2018 (its trademark application claimed use only from 17 Sep 2018) and that the defendant was a prior, continuous user of “M.E. Technology”. Consequently, all issues were decided against the plaintiff, and the suit was dismissed.
Godrej Properties Ltd. v. godrejmumbai.in & Ors on 30 Oct, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief on an application by Godrej Properties. Godrej Properties (Plaintiff) alleged that several websites (Defendants Nos 1-3) deceptively used its well-known trademark “GODREJ”, its copyrighted website content and layout, and even fake chat-interfaces to mislead unsuspecting customers. The Court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation; and directed the domain registrars to lock or suspend the infringing domains/webpages within 72 hours, pending further hearing.
State v. Apurva Jain on 30 October, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Apurva Jain was tried under Section 63 of the Copyright Act for allegedly possessing counterfeit sports goods bearing falsified trademarks of Freewill Sports, Cosco (India) Ltd., and Sunrise Sports India Pvt. Ltd. The prosecution’s sole witness, complainant Syed Moinuddin, repeatedly failed to appear despite summons and warrants, leaving no evidence to prove seizure or authenticity of the alleged counterfeit goods. With no incriminating material on record, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused.
Tata Sons Private Limited vs Martuj Ali & Anr on 3 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit sought an ex parte injunction against the Defendants for using the Plaintiff’s well-known trade mark ‘TATA’ and other formative marks. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were manufacturing and selling tobacco products under the mark of ‘TATA BIRI’. The Plaintiff had also filed an opposition against the registration of the Defendants’ mark, with the examiner noting that the Defendants’ mark was identical to the Plaintiff’s mark. Since the Defendant failed to issue a counterstatement to the opposition, their registration was deemed abandoned, yet they falsely represented it as registered. The Delhi High Court held that the Defendants’ use of the identical mark was dishonest and intended to ride on the Plaintiff’s goodwill. Therefore, the Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any ‘TATA BIRI’ or any other deceptively similar mark.
Mohammad Talha vs M/S Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd on 6 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present appeal arose from an injunction granted by the Commercial Court, which restrained the Appellant from using the mark ‘GULSHAN-E-KARIM’. The Respondent contended that the Appellant’s use of the Respondent’s well-known trademark ‘KARIM’ for his restaurant business constituted trademark infringement and amounted to exploiting the goodwill and reputation associated with the Respondent’s mark. The Appellant contended that the mark ‘KARIM’ was generic and was adopted by the Appellant honestly in 1997; however, no evidence to the same was brought forth. The Appellant further invoked the anti-dissection rule, contending that the mark must be viewed as a whole. The Delhi High Court held that the marks could not be compared side by side, and that to a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the use of ‘KARIM’ in both marks created an impression of association, which amounted to infringement. However, considering the Appellant’s use of the mark and local recognition, the Court modified the injunction and permitted the Appellant to continue using the mark with a clear disclaimer denying any connection with the Respondent.
In the case Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd vs Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, the Appellant sought an interim injunction alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the denial of relief. The Court held the Appellant was guilty of deliberate concealment of material facts, thereby disentitling them to equitable interim relief. The Court found the infringement claim potentially sustainable on merits, but not the passing off claim.
Jaquar And Company Private Limited vs Jaquar Franchise & Ors on 3 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit sought an ex parte ad-interim against the Defendants for using the Plaintiff’s well-known trademark ‘JACQUAR’ and other formative marks under deceptive domain names to fraudulently offer dealership opportunities. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were impersonating it to mislead the public and dupe them into transferring money, and that several victims had reported incidents of fraud. Thus, the Delhi High Court held that a prima facie case of infringement of trademark and copyright was made out and restrained the Defendants from using the mark ‘JAQUAR’ and ordered a suspension of the infringing domains and bank accounts linked to the fraud and also directed the internet and telecom service providers to block access to the websites.
Capital Foods, owned by the TATA Group, is the owner of the registered trademark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, which courts have previously held to have acquired secondary meaning. Capital Foods filed a suit seeking an ex parte ad-interim injunction against Ravi Pickles, which was producing an identical product under the names “SZECHWAN CHUTNEY” and “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY.” Noting that the triple identity test was satisfied, the Court granted the injunction, observing that Ravi Pickles was riding on the goodwill and reputation developed by Capital Foods.
ITC Limited v Bukhara Inn on 7 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The ITC Group of Hotels, owner of the well-known trademark “BUKHARA,” named after its famous restaurant in Delhi, filed a suit seeking an ad-interim injunction against Bukhara Inn, an 11-room guest house operated by the Bukhari family. While the defendants invoked the defence under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court rejected this contention and granted the injunction, noting that this was not a case of bona fide use of one’s own name, given that the Hotel was named “Bukhara,” not “Bukhari,” and had been set up subsequent to ITC’s Bukhara restaurant.
DAZN Limited & Anr vs 9Goals.Io & Ors on 6 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The sports streaming platform, DAZN, filed a suit against several broadcasters, domain name registrars, and internet service providers, seeking an ex parte ad-interim injunction against the illegal broadcasting of Lega Calcio Serie A, for which DAZN holds exclusive broadcasting rights. The court recognized that DAZN’s statutory rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957 had been violated and found a prima facie case for injunction. Accordingly, the court granted the injunction and permitted DAZN to approach it for action against any newly discovered websites that also infringe its rights.
The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal against an interim injunction granted by the Trial Court, restraining Mobile Bidi traders from using a deceptively similar, blue-themed label for its product with the mark ‘ATM Bidi No. 07’, holding it to closely resemble the plaintiff’s registered ‘Online Bidi’ trade dress. Noting that the similar blue design was likely to mislead consumers who largely identified products visually, the Court refused to interfere with the injunction.
Capital Foods Private Limited vs Damyaa (Pj) Foods Private Limited on 3 November, 2025 (Delhi HC)The DHC granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Capital Foods, restraining the defendants from using the marks ‘Schezwan Tufani Chutney’ or ‘Schezwan Chutney’, finding them to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark ‘Schezwan Chutney’. The Court noted that Capital Food’s mark had acquired immense goodwill and secondary significance through extensive use since 2012 and consequently, granted the injunction in their favour.
In the case Snt And Company Thr. Partner Mr. Raman vs M/S. Shah Nanji Nagis Exports Pvt Ltd., the plaintiff alleged infringement of its “SNN” trademark and deceptive trade dress by the defendant’s “SNT” product. The Bombay High Court quashed the temporary injunction order. The Court ruled the trial court’s finding of deceptive similarity was a mere conclusion, failing to discuss distinctive trade dress features or consider if confusion would arise for the end consumer.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Hafsah, Hari, Thahir, Vasundra, and Vikram for the case summaries)