MeitY’s proposed IT Rules amendment under scrutiny and more episodes from SpicyIPTV featuring Zara Kaushik and Kruttika Vijay. 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
Unpacking MeitY’s Proposed IT Rules Amendments: Between Regulation and Practicality
MeitY’s proposed IT Rules amendments aim to regulate AI, but blur legal lines, treating AI developers as “intermediaries” and requiring watermarks on all synthetic content, from deepfakes to filters. On these proposed amendments, Akshat Agrawal writes that while the intent is right, without clear definitions or compliance standards, the framework risks being unworkable.
The SpicyIP TV Podcast SS Edition: Ep 06 with Ms. Zara Kaushik
In the 6th episode of the SpicyIP Podcast Summer School Edition, Sonisha Srinivasan speaks with Ms. Zara Kaushik, an experienced commercial and media lawyer, about the structural challenges and power imbalances that arise in sports corporates as well as the crucial role of lawyers in integrating business strategy and legal expertise while educating businesses. She also offers guidance to students who want to pursue a career in the fascinating area of sports, media, and entertainment law.
The SpicyIP TV Podcast SS Edn: Ep 07 with Ms. Kruttika Vijay
In this 7th episode of the ongoing series, Sonisha Srinivasan speaks with Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Partner at Ira Law, and former blogger on SpicyIP, about what it takes to build a career in IP litigation. She also offers insights on effective client communication as well as other skills to grow as a legal professional, beyond just classroom learning.
Case Summaries
Hrithik Roshan vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors on 15 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Hrithik Roshan filed a suit before the DHC seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against several online platforms for misappropriating his personality and publicity rights for commercial gain. The alleged infringements ranged from the creation of AI-generated voices and images and the unauthorised sale of merchandise bearing his likeness. The DHC acknowledged Roshan’s celebrity status and accumulated goodwill and the potential harm to his reputation and consequently issued takedown directions to various platforms, including Meta, Google, Telegram, and e-commerce sites like Amazon and Flipkart, ordering them to remove the infringing content.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs Vivanta Stays & Ors on 17 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Indian Hotels Company (IHCL) filed a suit before the DHC, seeking an ad-interim injunction against ‘Vivanta Stays’ and ‘Vivanta Realty’ from infringing their ‘well-known’ trademark ‘VIVANTA’. The DHC ruled in favour of IHCL, finding a strong prima facie case of infringement. It was found that the Vivanta Stays was a fraudulent entity, enticing customers by misappropriating the goodwill of IHCL’s trademark. The DHC also directed the takedown of the website, social media references, and restrained the defendants from using the mark.
Khadi and Village Industries filed a suit before the DHC seeking an injunction against Sa Services Gramodyag Sanstha to restrain them from infringing the plaintiff’s ‘well-known’ trademark ‘KHADI’. The defendants had previously obtained a certificate from Khadi Industries permitting limited use of the ‘KHADI’ mark for selling textiles. However, they were found to be misusing this authorization by selling cosmetic products as well under the mark ‘KHADI TRADITIONAL’. Consequently, the DHC ruled in favour of Khadi Industries, noting that the permissive certificate did not extend to cosmetic goods. The defendants were thus restrained from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any goods under the impugned mark.
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited vs Wow Burger & Anr on 16 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In a continuation of the Wow Momo saga, the DHC granted an injunction in favour of Wow Momo, restraining Wow Burger from using their mark ‘Wow Burger’ or any other deceptively similar mark. The DHC held that the impugned marks had to be analysed as a whole. Wow Momo’s combination of using a common exclamation like ‘wow’ with food items was inventive and created a distinctive mark. Consequently, the mark ‘Wow Burger’ used by the defendant created a strong likelihood of confusion which would result in an infringement of Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court also applied the anti-dissection rule, holding that the dominant feature of both marks was the phrase ‘wow’, with the suffixes merely describing the food types. This also resulted in ‘idea infringement’, where Wow Burger had copied Wow Momo’s unique format of pairing a common exclamation like ‘wow’ with a food item.
Vishal Sakhla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
A petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR alleging offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 33EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was dismissed by the MP High Court. It was held that Section 63 is a cognisable offence empowering the police to investigate. As per K.C. Bokadia and Knit Pro International, non-registration of copyright is immaterial and as per Bhajan Lal, the Court found no ground for quashment.
Yc Electric Vehicle vs Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr on 16 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
DHC granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants, Iqbal Proprietors and another from using the marks ‘YATRI’, ‘E-YATRI’ or any deceptively similar variants for electric vehicles. The Plaintiff, YC Electric Vehicles was established in 2014 with substantial sales and valid trademark rights. It was held that the Plaintiff made a strong prima facie case and the matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on 8 December 2025 and before the Court on March 2025.
Novartis Ag & Anr vs Varun International & Ors on 6 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Novartis Ag & Anr (a leading company in the pharmaceutical industry), filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of their registered trade mark “NOVARTIS” against the defendant. The said mark had also been recognised as well-known in India. The defendant had adopted the mark ‘NOVARTIS’ for footwear, which is identical to the plaintiff’s mark. The DHC held that the impugned marks will cause ‘dilution by blurring’ and found that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case. Also, the balance of convenience lay in their favour, and that irreparable harm was likely to be caused if the injunction was not granted. Consequently, the Court restrained the defendants from selling or advertising products using the impugned marks of the plaintiff or any similar marks.
Kranti Arun Bari vs Me N Moms Private Limited & Anr on 16 October, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
DHC granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising baby products infringing the Plaintiff’s, Kranti Arun Bari, registered trademark ‘BabyTeddy’ and designs and copyrighted materials. It was found that there is prima facie similarity between the defendants’ products and the plaintiff’s designs. The Court passed an interim injunction order against the defendant and take down their website bearing the infringing material. The matter is listed on 22 January 2026.
DHC granted the Plaintiff, Unique International EV Pvt. Ltd. an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from using the marks ‘PANTHER’, ‘E-PANTHER’, ‘PENTHER’ or any other deceptively similar logos for e-rickshaw or any other related goods. It was found by the DHC that there exists a strong prima facie case of trademark and copyright infringement against the defendants, citing deliberate imitation and prior use by the plaintiff since 2014. The Court also allowed procedural applications for extensions, exemptions, and filings.
Shoban Salim Thakur vs Chaitanya Arora on 15 October, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The plaintiff had earlier obtained an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the marks, including “DOCTOR HEALTH SUPER SOFT”, etc. In the present case, BHC dismissed the suit and the interim injunction application. It found that the plaintiff had grossly suppressed material facts, thereby creating a false sense of urgency. These material facts included the territorial limitation of its Class 25 registration (which was restricted to Maharashtra), its prior stand before the Trademark registry disclaiming exclusivity over “DOCTOR” and “SOFT”, and the defendant’s prior use of the impugned marks. Consequently, the suit was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the plaintiff.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe) on 26 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs, including Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd sought a permanent injunction to restrain infringement of their trademark and device mark, against an unknown defendant (“Ashok Kumar”). The plaintiffs, after an investigation, discovered that counterfeit products were being sold bearing their trademark “HERO”, device mark & trade dress in an identical manner by the defendant. The DHC held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The balance of convenience was found to favour the plaintiffs, and irreparable harm was likely to be caused if the injunction was not granted. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the plaintiffs’ marks or any other deceptively similar marks.
Karim Hotels Pvt Ltd vs Karims Food on 18 October, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Karim Hotel, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against the alleged infringement and passing off by the defendant. They are the proprietors of the mark ‘KARIM/KARIM’s/KAREEM’. The defendant had adopted the name “KARIM’s FOOD” and was operating in Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff contended that it wrongly conveyed to unwary consumers the false impression of association and caused severe tarnishment of their brand. The Court found that there was a prima facie case for the grant of a permanent injunction. The balance of convenience was found to be there in the plaintiff’s favour, and irreparable harm was likely to be caused if the injunction was not granted. Consequently, the Court restrained the defendant from using the mark “KARIM’S FOOD” or any identical mark, and a decree of punitive damages of Rs. 2 lakhs was also passed in favour of the plaintiff.
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 136/2017 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (ss. 103/104) and the Copyright Act, 1957 (s. 63) for alleged sale of counterfeit goods. The parties had mediated and settled, and the complainant did not oppose quashing. The Court held that in commercial-dispute settings, Proceedings under s. 482 CrPC may be quashed on compromise, and quashed the FIR subject to a cost of ₹10,000.
M/S Zam Zam Perfumers v. Mr. Raiyaan Khan on October 13, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court granted an interim injunction relief, finding that the plaintiff, a long-time user of “ZAM ZAM / ZAM ZAM PERFUMERS” in class 3 for perfumes and related goods, had shown a prima facie case of infringement and passing-off by the defendant’s use of “NEW ZAM ZAM PERFUMES”. The Court held there was a likelihood of confusion and dilution of goodwill, and restrained the defendant from further use of the impugned mark.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited vs Eureka Forbes Limited on October 17, 2025 (Supreme Court)
Allowing Atomberg’s petition seeking transfer of Eureka Forbes’s infringement suit from New Delhi to Mumbai, the Supreme Court clarified that the action to file a suit against a groundless threat under Section 106 has an independent cause of action from that of an infringement suit. The Court held that since Atomberg’s Section 106 suit before the Bombay High Court was prior to Eureka Forbes’ patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court, and if both the suits are allowed to be continued independently, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, to save judicial time, the Court held that the Delhi patent infringement suit should be transferred to Bombay.
The plaintiff alleged infringement of its “Ultratech” trademark and trade dress by the defendant and sought an interim injunction against them. The Court compared the competing marks and trade dress and held that if the injunction is not granted, it will lead to erosion of consumer trust in the Plaintiffs’ products. Accordingly, the Court granted an interim injunction against the defendant’s use of the impugned marks and trade dress.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Arshya, Hafsah, Mayank, and Vikrant for the case summaries)