SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 24-November 30) – SpicyIP
India’s first scent trademark has been headline of the week – two posts discussing the event. A vital evaluation of the Draft GI Logo Guidelines. And Episode 2 of “Let’s IPsa Loquitur” is up with Sonisha Srinivasan chatting with Dr Zakir Thomas. This and rather more on this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we’re lacking out on? Drop a remark beneath to tell us.
Highlights of the Week
Let’s IPsa Loquitur: Dr. Zakir Thomas on Copyright, AI, Technology Sovereignty and Open Access
Excited to share Ep02 of Let’s IPsa Loquitur! Sonisha Srinivasan sits down with Dr Zakir Thomas — former Copyright Registrar and Project Director of the Open Source Drug Discovery Project — to delve into the continuing hot-topics reminiscent of Generative AI and Copyright. The dialogue explains ideas whereas additionally venturing into potential methods ahead. The dialogue then additionally goes into questions of technological sovereignty, in addition to Open Access concerns on this Gen AI context.
The registration for the first National Policy Brief Competition on Intellectual Property & Innovation 2025 by SpicyIP and CIPAM, DPIIT, is in full swing, with a number of groups signing up every day. We’ve acquired an impressive response, with 75+ groups having registered to this point! For the good thing about those that have already utilized, in addition to those that are nonetheless on the fence about this thrilling competitors, we’re sharing a clear, ready-to-reference template to information individuals by the important components required for his or her written submissions.
The Scent of the Sumitomo Trademark: What is the Celebration About?
India’s first ‘scent’ trademark, (for a rose-like perfume on tyres!) is being hailed by many as a landmark improvement within the nation’s trademark regime, but it surely raises key authorized and coverage considerations. Assessing the order, Tanishka Goswami highlights how the Registry’s reliance on an unexplained 7D graphical mannequin could elevate considerations round readability, objectivity, and intelligibility, and warns that such a broad description may open the door to related scent-based claims throughout unrelated items.
Don’t Look to the United States: They See ‘Smell’ Differently!
Adding to the continuing dialogue on India’s first odor mark (tyres with a floral perfume), Shama Mahajan provides an essential clarification on why the Registry’s reliance on U.S. precedents could also be misplaced. She explains that whereas the Indian TM Registry cited U.S. examples to help the registrability of odor marks, it neglected an important requirement underneath U.S. legislation: the necessity to show acquired distinctiveness.
Draft GI Logo Guidelines Risk Diluting Producer Rights: A Critical Analysis
The Draft Guidelines on GI and GI Logo Usage promise larger readability and standardisation, but they introduce modifications that would basically weaken GI safety in India. Dr. Anson C J explains that by broadening who can use GI names and logos, the draft shifts energy away from precise producers and in the direction of intermediaries. Noting the problems with the rules, he explains the necessity for a Producer-First Framework and suggests suggestions to re-centre the rules across the Actual GI Producer.
SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (01.12.2025)
This week’s shout-out goes to a doc that quietly formed the foundations of India’s patent system — the Ayyangar Committee Report, authored by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar in 1959. Often cited however not often learn in full, the report stays one of the vital intellectually rigorous coverage paperwork in Indian IP historical past. Also inside: a recent roundup of IP occasions, alternatives, and updates you received’t wish to miss.
Other Posts
DPIIT releases Funding Guidelines for International IP Moot Court Competitions!
In an thrilling improvement for college students collaborating in worldwide IP moot court docket competitions, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), by its CIPAM Cell, has formally rolled out the International IP Moot Court Funding Guidelines, 2025.
Stuck within the US Trade Standoff: Thinking About Cross-Retaliation?
In gentle of US tariffs on Indian imports hitting unprecedented ranges, how far can India go in responding to those steep measures? Exploring cross-retaliation as a potential response, Srishti Gaur explains the idea and assesses its feasibility.
Clean Hands versus Relevant Facts – The Tale of Injunctions
The Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant an interim injunction within the Quantum trademark dispute underscores a key stress in IP litigation: even a powerful prima facie case could falter if a celebration is discovered to have approached the court docket with “unclean hands.” Despite acknowledging infringement on the deserves, the Court denied reduction based mostly on alleged concealment across the appellant’s trademark registration. In this put up, Mohamed Thahir Sulaiman examines whether or not the Court overreached by invoking the clear arms doctrine on a reality that will not have been materials to the grant of interim reduction.
Inter-University Centre for IPR Studies (IUCIPRS), Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) is organising a hybrid webinar on “Panel Discussion on the Implications of Data Exclusivity on Access to Medicines and the Pharmaceutical Industry” on December 1, 2025, at IUCIPRS and by way of Google Meet digital room.
Case Summaries
Castrol Limited vs Sanjay Sonavane And Ors on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in Castrol Limited vs Sanjay Sonavane, addressed the maintainability of the Plaintiff’s second Plaint in search of reduction for industrial disparagement and media take-down. The underlying reason behind motion, rooted within the search and seizure proceedings and subsequent information articles/movies (August 2025), was identified when the Plaintiff filed the First Suit. Finding the Plaintiff omitted these claims regardless of full consciousness, the Court dominated the Plaint dismissed as barred underneath Order II Rule 2 of CPC, granting liberty to amend the First Suit.
The Court granted the Plaintiff’s software for interim injunction. The dispute concerned infringement of logos (like ‘DERMOMELAN’) and copyright within the format, ‘ingredients,’ and ‘steps to use’ of three facial kits. The Court restrained the Defendant from copying the copyrighted materials and utilizing ‘DERMOMELAN’, discovering prima facie substantial copying.
Sunil Niranjan Shah vs Vijay Bahadur on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court addressed the Plaintiff’s software for an interim injunction restraining infringement of the ‘GAAY CHHAP’ and ‘COW BRAND’ logos. The Court established territorial jurisdiction as a result of the Defendant purposefully availed itself of the jurisdiction by way of the interactive IndiaMart platform. Finding the Plaintiff was the prior consumer since 1975 and that the Impugned Marks have been deceptively related, the Court granted the interim injunction.
The Court addressed a Section 50 petition in search of cancellation of Copyright registration No. A-128046/2019. The Petitioner, the registered proprietor of prior SWASTIK Artistic Works, argued the Impugned Artistic Work was a considerable, non-original imitation, reproducing the important SWASTIK gadget. Since the Respondent did not file a reply, the Court discovered the Impugned Artistic Work lacked originality and ordered its expungement and cancellation from the Register of Copyright.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors vs Nalathoti Ramu & Anr on 21 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The current swimsuit was filed by the Plaintiffs in search of a everlasting injunction towards Defendant No. 1 for utilizing the Plaintiff’s well-known mark ‘VERIZON’ for salon and spa enterprise. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1 has a site title registration of http://www.verizonspa.com/ whereby it hosted an lively web site, promoted its providers with the impugned mark on third-party listings, and didn’t reply to the Plaintiff’s stop and desist discover. The Court held that the impugned marks have been an identical and supposed to mislead a median client and thus granted a short lived injunction towards Defendant No.1.
The current software was filed by the Defendant, who sought the return of the plaint for the shortage of territorial jurisdiction. The Defendant contended that every one actions occurred exterior of Delhi, its web site was not interactive, and the Plaintiff had not proven any invoices of buy or supply of merchandise in Delhi. The Plaintiff, alternatively, relied on the web site’s ‘Contact Us’ web page, downloadable brochures with the infringing marks ‘PEPFIX’ and ‘NEOVITAL’, and a list of third-party platforms accessible in Delhi, and thus contended that jurisdiction lay with the Delhi High Court as the reason for motion arose there. The Court held that the objections to territorial jurisdictions must be determined based mostly on the demurrer precept, which accepts all averments within the Plaint to be true. Thus, based mostly on the Plaintiff’s pleadings, it was held that the Court had the jurisdiction and the appliance was accordingly dismissed, with the jurisdiction stored open as a preliminary difficulty for trial.
Medilabo Rfp Inc vs The Controller Of Patents on 24 November 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The current attraction challenged the Respondent’s refusal to grant a patent to Appellant’s drug composition titled ‘PROPHYLACTIC OR THERAPEUTIC DRUG FOR NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES’, which was rejected underneath Section 3(i) as a way of remedy. The Appellant contended the amended claims have been product claims and never technique claims, and that the Assistant Controller wrongly relied on earlier claims. The Respondent, alternatively, argued that the invention implicitly directed in the direction of a way of remedy and that the claimed invention lacks technical impact in its scope. The Court held that the Controller had failed to look at the amended claims and had additionally failed to handle different objections within the FER. Thus, the Court put aside the order and remanded the appliance for recent consideration.
The current attraction challenged the Respondent No. 1’s refusal to grant a patent to the Appellant’s invention titled ‘Stable Herbicidal Composition comprising Pendimethalin and Metribuzin’ on the grounds of lack of novelty and creative step. The Appellant contended that the Respondent No.1 failed to handle the objection that the prior doc D3 didn’t qualify as prior artwork. The Court, noting this, additionally held that prior paperwork D1 and D2 didn’t qualify as prior artwork as they didn’t disclose the EC formulation. Thus, the Court put aside the order and remanded it for recent consideration.
The current attraction challenged the Respondent’s refusal to grant a patent to the Appellants’ invention titled ‘SUSTAINED RELEASE FORMULATIONS USING NON-AQUEOUS CARRIERS’, on the grounds of lack of creative step and falling inside the exception of Section 3(d). The Appellants contended that the Respondent didn’t cite any closest prior artwork, didn’t present counter arguments to the Appellants’ authorized submissions and that the Appellants held registrations in international international locations as nicely. The Respondent, alternatively, argued that the prior paperwork D1 to D4 made the invention apparent and that the Appellants disclosed no outcomes to the issue within the full specification. Rejecting the Appellant’s arguments, the Court held that the claimed invention was apparent, lacked creative step in gentle of prior paperwork and thus, dismissed the attraction.
The DHC dismissed a swimsuit filed by Hermes and its Indian subsidiary towards Macky Lifestyle for infringing the 3D form of their well-known ‘Birkin’ bag and the Hermes carriage mark. The Court famous that Macky Lifestyles had now shut down, and no infringing merchandise have been ever manufactured or bought – the case was filed as a consequence of sure pictures being uploaded on the Internet. Notwithstanding, the Court went on to cope with Hermes’ submission that their marks have been well-known marks underneath the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Noting Hermes’ lengthy world historical past and worldwide popularity, the Court declared their marks as ‘well-known’ underneath Section 2(1)(zg) of the TM Act.
In a dispute surrounding the mark ‘ACECLO’, the Bombay High Court refused to grant Aristo Pharmaceuticals an interim injunction towards the defendants use of the mark ‘ACECLOHEAL’. The Court famous that ‘ACECLO’ is derived from ‘ACECLOFENAC’ which is an International Non-Proprietary Name (INN). Section 13 of the TM Act, 1999 bars the registration of INNs or deceptively related names. Both events have been due to this fact discovered to be utilizing permissible variations of the identical generic supply. The court docket additional famous clear variations within the rival marks’ general presentation, packaging, font and pricing, and located no credible probability of confusion or misrepresentation, notably in a market the place a number of producers use related clipped types of the INN. Concluding that no prima facie case of infringement or passing off was established, the court docket dismissed the appliance for interim injunction.
Koninklijke Philips N. V. & Ors vs Karma Mindtech & Ors on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Philips sought perjury proceedings towards a former worker (D2) on the bottom that his affidavit in response to court-ordered interrogatories contained false denials that contradicted his written assertion, the Local Commissioner’s report, and his employment paperwork. The Court held that such inconsistencies, arising in the middle of an ongoing civil dispute, don’t meet the authorized threshold for perjury, which requires a transparent, deliberate falsehood established by unimpeachable proof and proven to have been made with intent to mislead the Court. It famous that the LC report additionally recorded no infringing software program at D2’s premises, and the so-called contradictions relate to issues that should be examined at trial. Finding no deliberate falsehood or expediency justifying legal motion, the Court dismissed the perjury software.
Tesla Inc vs Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In this trademark dispute, Tesla argued that Tesla Power India’s adoption of “Tesla Power” and associated marks for batteries, inverters and EV-adjacent merchandise infringed its well-known TESLA mark and tried to trip on its worldwide popularity and Indian goodwill. The Delhi High Court held that Tesla holds legitimate, subsisting registrations masking cars, structural car elements and inverters, and that batteries are allied and cognate items, making confusion doubtless. The Court additionally famous proof of precise public and media confusion and located Tesla Power India’s adoption dishonest. An interim injunction was due to this fact granted.
Trident Limited vs Controller Of Patents on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In this case, Trident appealed the refusal of its patent software for “air rich” towel cloth constituted of yarn with pores evenly unfold throughout the cross-section. The Controller had rejected the appliance for lack of creative step, counting on prior artwork and arguing that related mixing processes would robotically give the identical consequence. The Court notes that not one of the prior artwork signifies this and that the impugned order doesn’t clarify how a talented individual would attain Trident’s claimed yarn. The Court held that the order additionally ignores detailed examples within the specification and confuses fibre distribution with pore distribution. Finding a number of infirmities, the Court units apart the refusal and remands the case to a distinct Controller for recent consideration.
Saurabh Gupta vs Sheopals Pvt Ltd on 26 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s refusal to restrain Sheopals from utilizing the mark SHEOPAL’S, whereas considerably correcting its reasoning. The Court held that the anti-dissection and dominant-part assessments had been wrongly invoked, as Saurabh Gupta’s registered mark OPAL is a single-word mark and never a composite mark. Examining the rival marks as wholes, the Bench discovered OPAL and SHEOPAL’S neither visually nor phonetically related in a fashion more likely to confuse a client of common intelligence and imperfect recollection. It rejected the argument that OPAL was generic, discovering it distinctive when used for cosmetics, and clarified that mere delay or the defendant’s promotional expenditure can’t defeat an infringement declare on the interim stage. Nonetheless, as a result of no prima facie misleading similarity existed, the Court affirmed dismissal of Saurabh’s injunction software.
Bignet Solutions Llp vs Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd on 21 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs, after being requested to acquire a licence and pay a quoted payment for enjoying music created by the defendants at an occasion, realised that the works have been from the pre-1965 interval and due to this fact within the public area as of 2025. They then filed a swimsuit in search of a everlasting injunction and damages. However, the defendants asserted in court docket that that they had by no means claimed copyright or demanded any licence payment. Consequently, the court docket dismissed the swimsuit and rejected the plaintiffs’ declare for damages.
ITC Limited vs Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors on 24 November, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
ITC restricted, producer of cigarettes, owned the trademark “GOLD FLAKE” and filed a swimsuit in search of injunction towards Pelican Tobacco’s utilization of the logos “GOLD FLAME” and “GOLD FIGHTER”, claiming them to be deceptively related, with the distinction in single letter between “FLAKE” and “FLAME” indicating mimicry. In response, Pelican argued that that they had been in steady utilization since 2015 and the phrase “GOLD” is generic, and can’t be protected. Agreeing with ITC, the Court granted injunction, holding there to be a case of visible and phonetic similarity between the 2 logos and held that Initial Interest confusion results in infringement.
Envitech Consultants, a registered MSME consultancy agency subcontracted by Rudrabhishek Enterprises, undertook to conduct a topographical survey and put together Detailed Project Reports for surface-water provide schemes. However, Envitech submitted the studies on the final minute with out conducting the required survey, main Rudrabhishek to terminate the contract. Envitech then filed a swimsuit alleging copyright infringement over the “Subject Work,” however Rudrabhishek sought rejection of the plaint for lack of reason behind motion. The court docket agreed, holding that Envitech lacked copyright as first possession vested in Rudrabhishek underneath Section 17 and the work certified as “Government Work.”
The appellants, who owned registrations for the trademark “HAVELI” in varied courses, opposed the registration of the mark “AMRITSAR HAVELI” in Class 43, alleging misleading similarity. The Registrar rejected the opposition, resulting in an attraction earlier than the High Court. The Court upheld the Registrar’s resolution, holding that the appellants had failed to point out prior use or popularity of “HAVELI” for Class 43 providers and that the inclusion of the geographical time period “AMRITSAR” was permissible and didn’t render the mark non-distinctive. Accordingly, the Court rejected the appellant’s declare of misleading similarity.
The plaintiffs, engaged in processing and advertising and marketing rice underneath the trademark “AL-BUSTAN” in each English and Arabic scripts, filed a swimsuit for trademark infringement towards the defendants, who have been their former enterprise associates. The defendants have been discovered to be advertising and marketing rice underneath the identical trademark in deceptively related packaging. The court docket held {that a} prima facie case of infringement was made out and famous that the defendants had slavishly copied the plaintiffs’ product, apparently, even reproducing the plaintiffs’ cell quantity on their packaging.
The plaintiff, a part of the Danone Group of corporations engaged within the specialised vitamin market, promotes its merchandise underneath the registered trademark “PROTINEX.” The defendants provided protein powder underneath the mark “PROTOEX” and had filed a trademark software, which the plaintiff opposed as being deceptively much like “PROTINEX.” Finding a prima facie case of structural, visible, and phonetic similarity between the marks, together with deceptively related commerce costume, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from utilizing the “PROTOEX” mark.
Boman Irani, the appellant, is the son of Rustom Irani, founding father of Ideal Jawa, the corporate that manufactured bikes underneath the “YEZDI” model. After Rustom’s dying, Ideal Jawa went into liquidation, the Official Liquidator, the respondent, took management, and the trademark “YEZDI” fell into disuse from 1996 onward. Around 2014, when Boman Irani sought to register the “YEZDI” trademark after many years of non-use, the Official Liquidator filed the current swimsuit. The Single Judge held that Ideal Jawa remained the proprietor of the trademark. On attraction, the Division Bench reversed this discovering, holding that the mark had been deserted and that no goodwill remained many years after Ideal Jawa ceased utilizing it.
Sabar Aroma, producers of pan masala and gutkha merchandise underneath the trademark “PANZIO,” filed a swimsuit for injunction towards Satyapal Shivkumar for manufacturing counterfeit merchandise having the identical mark for export to Malaysia. The Court discovered it evident that the defendant’s merchandise have been counterfeit and held that this constituted clear trademark infringement. Accordingly, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Sabar Aroma.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Hari, Thahir, Vasundra, and Vikram for the case summaries)
