A peek behind the curtains of the Patent Amendment Rules, 2024; discussion on the recent DHC orders regarding personality rights of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, and Karan Johar; And the DHC decision on cross examination in post-grant oppositions. 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
Part I: A Peek Behind the Curtains of the Patent Amendment Rules 2024
A massive RTI response has revealed a curious mismatch between the CGPDTM’s comments on a few provisions of the Draft Patent Amendment Rules 2024, vis-a-vis the final version of the Patent Amendment Rules, 2024. While digging into this, Arnav Kaman and Pranav Aggarwal also note that the RTI response seems to indicate FTA negotiations may have influenced the content of the Patent Amendment Rules.
Part II: A Peek Behind the Curtains of the Patent Amendment Rules 2024: A Diversity Analysis
Continuing the discussion on the RTI response to the Patent Amendment Rules, Arnav Kaman undertook a first level diversity analysis of the stakeholders who participated in the process. Usurprisingly, it confirms that there is a heavy over-representation of corporate interests in the stakeholder consultation process. However, it also reveals that unfortunately, despite innumerable law schools and 18+ DPIIT chairs, only a handful of institutions and academicians shared their comments on the Draft Patent Amendment Rules, 2023.
What’s in a name? Money, Fame and Publicity Rights
In light of the recent interim injunctions against individuals/entities selling T-shirts, coffee mugs, wallpapers and posters bearing the image/name of Abhishek Bachchan, Aishwarya Bachchan, and Karan Johar, Yogesh Byadwal writes on the increasingly aggressive on the issue of personality rights.
Strategic Delay Backfires: How Novartis Lost Its Cross-Examination Rights
Adding another chapter to the Entresto patent dispute, the Delhi High Court recently clarified that the right to cross-examine an expert in post-grant oppositions is not absolute and must be exercised immediately after a party files its evidence. Breaking down the Court’s judgment, Anushka Kanabar explains how Novartis’ strategy to seek cross-examination a year after the filing of evidence backfired and why the issue of violation of natural justice does not arise in the present case.
Other Posts
Assessing the implications of the Sci-hub blocking order from the lens of James Boyle’s work, “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain” (2003), Sarthak Gupta explains how it affects education, research, and scientific progress in the country.
Right to Integrity in Indian Courts: A Case for an Objective Standard
Proposing a counter to the subjective standard for protecting an author’s right to integrity, Adyasha Samal suggests an objective assessment that considers the context and surrounding factors of the offending act, with the aim of promoting creative freedom.
Frimline and the Future of Open-Ended Transition Phrases in Indian Patent Law
On the Delhi High Court’s recent order in Frimline v. Smatco, Anushka Kanabar explains how the order is another step in the judicial shift towards a broad interpretation of claim construction, which is aligned with the US’ approach.
On BHC’s decision to not allow any interim relief owing to the parties’ unclean hands, Anushka Kanabar looks at the ‘clean hands doctrine’ in IP cases and how the Court applied it here.
IP8, an infringement monitoring platform by the team behind PatSeer, is launching an agentic AI solution for continuous global infringement surveillance. To know more, please read on
Case Summaries
Exotic Mile vs Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd on 15 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff filed a trademark infringement case against the defendant for using marks deceptively similar to their registered well-known ‘boAt’ trademark. A single judge of the DHC granted an interim injunction against Exotic Mile, restraining them from using the mark and the tagline ‘UNPLUG YOURSELF’. The defendant appealed to the Division Bench against this order. The Division Bench held that the previous order correctly applied the principles of passing-off and upheld its findings of similarity and likelihood of confusion. However, it noted that the plaintiff had not asked the Court to injunct the tagline and the mark ‘GOBOULT’, however, the single judge went beyond the pleadings and provided relief against these two. Since the relief sought by the plaintiff did not cover the tagline and the mark GOBOULT, the defendant is free to use them for now. The plaintiff, on the other hand, can file a fresh suit to challenge the use.
Utolish Ali Amir vs M/S Sumo Digital Incorporation on 9 September, 2025 (Gujarat High Court)
The case concerns a trademark dispute against the mark ‘SUMO PRO’ which the plaintiff alleged is deceptively similar to their owned trademark ‘SUMO DIGITAL’. The Commercial Court (Ahmedabad) granted an interim injunction in favour of Sumo Digital Incorporation. Against this order, the defendant appealed to the Gujarat High Court. The GHC noted that an ordinary buyer might find it confusing to differentiate the defendant’s products from those of the plaintiff’s, considering both are in the same line of business – weighing machines. The Court upheld the impugned order since Sumo Digital is a registered and prior user, its rights prevail over SUMO PRO.
Upl Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 September, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The plaintiff challenged the decision of the Controller of Patents to reject their patent application on the ground that it violated principles of natural justice. The plaintiff argued that the Controller ignored the expert affidavit with technical evidence and relied on his own scientific analysis. Further, no separate hearings were held for pre-grant opposition and examination of the application but rather a common order was passed for the two. The Court noted that pre-grant opposition and examination application are two distinct realms and cannot be merged into one. It was wrong on the part of the Controller to ignore the expert affidavit and apply his own independent analysis without granting the petitioner a chance to respond. Taking into consideration these accounts, the court set aside the impugned order in view that it was in violation of principles of justice.
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited vs Wow Burger & Anr on 12 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sued the defendant over the use of ‘WOW BURGER’ which it alleged is deceptively similar to their marks, including ‘WOW! MOMO’, ‘WOW! CHINA’, and ‘WOW! CHICKEN’. The Court noted that words like PRIDE, INSTITUTE, YATRA, and WOW are common or descriptive words and such words cannot be monopolized unless these words acquire secondary meaning through exclusive use for a prolonged period. The Court held that registration of a composite mark, WOW! MOMO, does not grant exclusivity to the registrant over its individual elements due to their genericity. A mark is to be judged in its entirety and each registered mark is protected as a whole unit. When compared as a whole, the defendant’s mark is distinct from the plaintiff’s mark in colour scheme and market positioning. Further, the defendant’s mark was never registered and was used only as a menu item in 2018. As of today, it is sold as Moburg, thus, the claim of continuous use of ‘WOW! BURGER’ cannot be substantiated. Thereby, the Court dismissed the application for an interim injunction since no prima facie case was established.
Sintex Bapl Ltd vs Deepak Kumar on 12 September, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff alleged the defendant was unauthorizedly manufacturing, selling, and distributing counterfeit products bearing identical or deceptively similar ‘SINTEX’ marks, including online platforms like Indiamart.com. The defendant denied infringement, asserting he was a former distributor via a dissolved partnership firm (M/s Sunrise Trolley Manufacturers) until 2021, and the seized goods were old, genuine stock purchased from the plaintiff. The court framed seven issues and ruled the suit non-maintainable, as the plaintiff failed to prove that suit was filed by a duly authorized person (issue 3). On issues 1 and 2, the defendant failed to prove the seized goods were all genuine purchases. For issue 4, the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction against passing off, given prior use of ‘SINTEX’, but not infringement due to unproven registrations. Issue 5 granted delivery up and rendition of accounts for unauthorized sales. Issue 6 awarded punitive damages of Rs. 2,00,000 to the plaintiff.
Ashim Ghosh vs Ms Madrat Games P.Ltd on 11 September, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff, Ashim Ghosh, claimed copyright in his Hindi word board game series Shabdkoshish (versions I–III) developed between 2000–2008. He alleged that the defendant’s game Aksharit (launched in 2010) was an unlawful adaptation and infringing copy of his game series Shabhkoshish. Ghosh sought injunction, damages, and delivery of infringing goods. The defendant countered that Aksharit was an independent innovation, designed after technical study of Hindi orthography, and denied copying. They argued plaintiff’s work lacked originality and was itself derivative of Scrabble. The Court held that to succeed, the plaintiff had to prove originality of Shabdkoshish and copying by the defendant. Both games were inspired by Scrabble, limiting the scope of originality. The plaintiff established substantial similarity and the issue is also accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant was restrained from using his game series as it was similar to the Shabhkoshish. Damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- and cost of suit awarded to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has filed a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against defendants for infringing its registered and unregistered trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights under the brand ‘BLUE HEAVEN’ and formative marks like ‘GET BOLD’. The plaintiff discovered the defendant infringing its mark in September 2025. Defendant’s mark under the brand ‘MAYSI’, uses identical packaging, trade dress, and color schemes to the plaintiff and sells on platforms like Meesho, Amazon, and Desertcart. The plaintiff argued that this deliberate replication, including and similar bottle designs, constitutes trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation, risking consumer deception and harm due to substandard quality. The court found a prima facie case, noting the striking similarity in packaging likely to deceive consumers, especially for cosmetics, and issued an ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from using, selling, or advertising the impugned ‘MAYSI’ products and ordered removal of their online listings.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Srishti and Riddhi for the case summaries.)