SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 8 – September 14) – SpicyIP
Midway to September – a submit on the issues of the Indian SEP-Antitrust Gridlock. A two half submit on the Pandemic Agreement’s PABS system and one other on the Karnataka HC between revocation petition and a patent infringement continuing. This and much more on final week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Here’s a roundup of our weblog posts, case summaries and high IP developments within the nation and the world this week. Anything we’re lacking out on? Drop a remark beneath to tell us.
Highlights of the Week
License to Kill (Innovation): Problems of the Indian SEP-Antitrust Gridlock
In gentle of the anticlimactic finish to the Ericsson v. CCI dispute, SpicyIP Tech Innovation Policy Fellow Ambika Aggarwal writes on how the lengthy battle for sectoral energy and the shortage of coverage steering from the Patent and Competition Law authorities, particularly in issues of SEP and antitrust overlaps, divert focus from markets and have an effect on innovation incentives and home competitors.
Part I: Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Delving into the Entanglements of the PABS Annex
Explaining Stephanie Switzer, Adam Strobeyko, Mark Eccleston-Turner, Sylvain Aubry, and Michelle Rourke’s solutions on the Pandemic Agreement’s Annexure on Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (“PABS”) system, within the first a part of her two-part submit on the Annexure, Srishti Gaur assesses their feasibility and potential implications.
Part II: Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Delving into the Entanglements of the PABS Annex
Continuing the dialogue on Stephanie Switzer, Adam Strobeyko, Mark Eccleston-Truner, Sylvain Aubry, and Michelle Rourke’s paper on Pandemic Agreement’s Annex, in Part II of the submit, Srishti discusses the issues put forth within the paper, appreciating the issues of various Member States.
Other Posts
Caught in Limbo: The Karnataka HC’s Compromise on Staying Patent Infringement Suits
On March 1, the Karnataka High Court addressed the query of whether or not a patent infringement continuing should be stayed throughout a pending revocation petition. Anushka Kanabar examines the order and assesses how the Court tried to strike the stability by concluding that the infringement continuing must be stayed on the stage of ultimate hearings, and whether or not the Patents Act helps this understanding.
Case Summaries
Adidas Ag vs Ashok Kumar Unknown on 20 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed a trademark infringement and passing off swimsuit towards a defendant arrayed as a John Doe attributable to difficulties in identification. The Court held that the counterfeit socks manufactured by the defendant bore precise replicas of the Plaintiff’s registered phrase mark ‘Adidas’ and its logos, and even falsely said “Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd.” because the producer. It granted an ex-parte injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner for the recognized manufacturing unit and warehouse.
The Plaintiff had registered a mark ‘NAXDOM’ for a migraine remedy drug, and sued the defendants for manufacturing and advertising and marketing a drug underneath the mark ‘NEXADOM’. The Court famous that the defendant’s trademark software for ‘NEXADOM’ had already been refused by the Trademark Registry for being deceptively just like the Plaintiff’s mark. It utilized the strict take a look at of “deceptive similarity” for pharmaceutical merchandise and granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction towards the defendants and appointed a Local Commissioner to grab infringing items.
Archian Foods Private Limited vs Dhruvi Beverages Pvt Ltd on 29 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, a producer of non-alcoholic drinks underneath the mark ‘LAHORI ZEERA’, sued the defendant for utilizing the the marks ‘LAHOR’ and ‘LAHOR ZEERA’, together with an analogous commerce costume and bottle design. The Court confused on the necessity for a better diploma of warning in circumstances involving meals and beverage merchandise because of the potential public well being issues. Finding a case of “triple identity” (an identical mark, items, and shopper base), the Court granted an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant and appointed a Local Commissioner to grab the products.
Stromag Gmbh vs The Controller General Of Patents on 4 September, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The Appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent software for a hydraulically actuatable disk brake. The impugned order merely listed seven prior artwork paperwork and concluded that the invention was a mere mixture missing an ingenious step. The Court put aside the order for failing to elucidate how the prior arts rendered the invention apparent, highlighting {that a} quasi-judicial order should communicate for itself by reasoned evaluation. It additionally remanded the matter to a distinct Hearing Officer for a contemporary determination.
Velji Karamshi Vaid And Anr vs V3 Fashion And 6 Ors on 9 September, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The Plaintiffs, engaged within the garment enterprise, filed a trademark infringement and passing off swimsuit towards the defendants for utilizing the marks ‘V3’ and ‘VOLUME 4′. The Plaintiff’s declare of use since 2016 was undermined by its trademark software filed on a “proposed to be used” foundation in 2018. On the opposite hand, the defendants’ declare of prior use was supported solely by fabricated invoices. The Court subsequently held that neither social gathering had approached the Court with clear fingers and refused to grant any interim aid.
Abhishek Bachchan vs The Bollywood Tee Shop & Ors on 10 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff Mr. Bachchan filed a swimsuit towards numerous defendants for misappropriating his character rights by unauthorizedly promoting merchandise (T-shirts, mugs, posters) bearing his title and picture and for creating AI-generated content material that includes him on YouTube. Finding that this unauthorized business exploitation impacted the Plaintiff’s financial pursuits and particular person dignity, the Court granted a broad injunction restraining the defendants from utilizing any attributes of the Plaintiff’s persona, together with by way of AI instruments, and directed intermediaries and authorities departments to take down the infringing URLs.
The petitioner, M/S New Bharat, owns trademark and copyright over the creative work “TAJ MAHAL” used within the packaging of its rice enterprise. The petitioner filed a swimsuit towards the defendant for acquiring registration over an inventive work “GARIMAA GOLD” which additionally illustrates the Taj Mahal of their rice packaging. The petitioner argued that the respondent registered the stated copyright with out serving them a discover. To which the respondent responded that first, the Taj is a public monument and nobody can declare exclusivity over it, and second, the petitioner isn’t an social gathering as a result of no discover was served. The Court dominated that the petitioner was an social gathering as a result of that they had possession over the trademark and copyright, and in addition initiated FIRs towards the respondent. It was a failure on the a part of the respondent to not adjust to Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. Following this, the DHC cancelled the copyright registered in favour of the respondent.
Saint Gobain Glass France vs Assistant Controller of Patents And … on 11 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Saint-Gobain, the Plaintiff, filed an enchantment towards the choice of the Controller of Patents concerning its patent software, which was for a coated glass substrate. It argued that their software was new and ingenious and prior arts didn’t disclose the precise mixture – nickel or chromium layer with dielectric coating. Additionally, since France has granted the patent, India ought to observe the identical. The Court dominated in favour of the Controller’s determination, noting that the prior artwork has achieved related or higher outcomes. There was no ingenious step since solely the thickness ranges had been optimised which was equal to a workshop enchancment. Lastly, a overseas grant is irrelevant since a patent software has to go the take a look at underneath Indian legislation.
Mr. Arjan Dugal & Anr vs Mr. Shubham Gandhi & Anr on 29 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, Arjan Dugal and his firm, alleged that their ex-employee and his spouse, the defendants, misused their confidential info, commerce secrets and techniques, and consumer base in developing a competing enterprise, ‘So.Man’, which builds on the creative works and development strategies of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that the defendant’s clothes are just like their signature kinds, particularly the embroidery, cuts, built-in sq. pockets, and color mixtures. Further, the defendants have decreased their costs which places the Plaintiff at a disadvantageous place out there. This led to the Court deciding that the Plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of infringement and granted an ex-parte injunction within the absence of which the Plaintiff will endure irreparable hurt. Lastly, a Local Commissioner has been appointed to examine the premises of the defendants and is instructed to file a report inside 2 weeks.
Habibs Cosmetics Private Limited vs Habib Hair And Care on 4 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The pPlaintiff, Habibs, owns the registered trademark “HABIBS”, which has been in use since 1990 for hair and sweetness companies. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendant is utilizing the mark “HABIB HAIR & CARE” on signboards and supplies with out the Plaintiff’s authorization. Despite sending an issued discover, the defendant has continued to make use of it. The DHC earlier granted an injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, restraining the defendant from utilizing the contested or related marks. However, the defendant didn’t seem for any hearings and in addition violated the injunction. Taking this in cognizance, the Court held that the defendant exhibited a mala fide intent for which a everlasting injunction is handed towards them together with financial damages.
Novartis Ag & Anr vs Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited on 9 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Novartis filed a swimsuit towards the defendant, Novarise Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., which is supplying pharmaceutical uncooked supplies underneath the mark “NOVARISE”, which the Plaintiff contends is deceptively just like their registered trademark “NOVARTIS”. The Plaintiff requested an pressing interim aid for which the Court exempted the Plaintiffs from necessary mediation underneath Section 12A. The Court famous that NOVARISE is visually and phonetically just like NOVARTIS. Since the 2 function in the identical business, having the identical commerce channel, the ‘triple identity’ take a look at is fulfilled. The Court held {that a} prima facie case of infringement was made out and granted an interim injunction towards the defendant.
Ashish Aggarwal vs M/S Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd on 3 September, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The current swimsuit is predicated on everlasting injunction for infringement of Plaintiff’s commerce mark. The Plaintiff is a sports activities fanatic and proprietor of the registered logos ‘X1’ and ‘X1 WAR OF X-TREME SPEED’. The defendant makes use of related trademark ‘X1’ and ‘X1 RACING LEAGUE’ for motorsport occasions. The Plaintiff, managing trustee of the Jet Sports Academy of India, had used these logos since 2016 for water sports activities occasions and claimed vital goodwill. The defendant, included in 2018, argued its use of ‘X1’ was impressed by a supersonic rocket and denied infringement, citing no unique rights over particular person trademark parts. The courtroom held that the defendant’s use of the mark was infringing and misleading and granted a everlasting injunction restraining the defendant from utilizing the impugned logos.
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs Aishwaryaworld.Com & Ors on 9 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, granted the Plaintiff exemption from pre-institution mediation, extension of time to file requisite certificates. Summons had been issued to the Defendants, together with Google, e-commerce platforms, web sites, AI chatbots, and YouTube channels allegedly misusing the Plaintiff’s title, picture, and persona by unauthorized merchandise, deepfakes, impersonation, and obscene AI-generated content material. The Court relied on precedents like Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, recognizing character rights as integral to dignity, privateness, and livelihood, holding that unauthorized business exploitation causes confusion, hurt to fame, and contractual conflicts. An ex-parte injunction was granted restraining Defendants from exploiting the Plaintiff’s persona together with title, picture, likeness, or acronym ‘ARB’ by any medium, together with AI, deepfakes, and morphing. The Court directed platforms like YouTube and e-commerce websites to take down infringing content material, disclose subscriber particulars, and adjust to blocking orders, with the matter listed for additional listening to on 15 January 2026.
The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction towards the defendants for utilizing the mark ‘HTA’ and related commerce costume, alleging passing off, because the Plaintiff has used ‘HTA’ since 1985 and ‘Ars-HTA’ since 1994 in its rubber and aluminium merchandise enterprise, supplying main OEMs. The defendants declare utilizing ‘HTA’ mark since 1977 and holding registrations since 2007. It was discovered that the submitted paperwork by the defendant had been fabricated and falsely established prior use. The Court held that the Plaintiff’s intensive goodwill and the defendants’ dishonest adoption of an identical marks and packaging was mala fide. The Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from utilizing ‘HTA’ or related marks and commerce costume till the swimsuit’s remaining adjudication.
Mattel, Inc vs Padum Borah And Ors on 8 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed a swimsuit looking for an ad-interim injunction towards the defendant for infringing and passing off its registered trademark ‘BARBIE,’ used since 1959 for toys and different merchandise, claiming that the Defendant has dishonestly adopted related marks like ‘BARBIE One Stop Solution for HORECA & Foods Processing’ and others for business kitchen gear and catering companies. The Plaintiff has intensive world and Indian goodwill, evidenced by USD 14 million. The Court held that the defendant’s marks visually, phonetically, and conceptually had been an identical to the Plaintiff’s and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from utilizing the impugned marks.
Gaurav Singhal vs Jatin Jain on 1 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff seeks pressing aid towards the Defendant for promoting counterfeit merchandise underneath the mark ‘SPARK INDIA’ with packaging just like the Plaintiff’s registered commerce costume and labels ‘SPARK INDIA’ and ‘BS SIX SPARK INDIA’. The Plaintiff additionally seeks exemption from pre-litigation mediation. The Court discovered prima facie infringement and the usage of mark by the Defendant induced irreparable hurt to the Plaintiff. The Court handed an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from utilizing the impugned mark. The matter is subsequent listed on 07.01.2026.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe) on 19 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted the Plaintiff exemption from advance service, pre-litigation mediation, and courtroom charges. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was promoting counterfeit two-wheeler spare components underneath the registered HERO trademark and the sub-brand HERO GENUINE PARTS. The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from utilizing the HERO marks. A Local Commissioner was appointed with huge powers to examine, seize, and stock counterfeit items. The matter is subsequent listed earlier than the Joint Registrar on 25.09.2025 and earlier than Court on 17.02.2026.
The Plaintiff, Volvo, argued that the defendant is utilizing the mark “VOLVO PLUS” for lubricants and engine oil. The given case, as per the Court, glad the triple identification take a look at – identical mark, identical product and identical commerce channel. Considering the emergency and gravity of the case, the Court exempted the events from the pre-institution mediation course of and granted an injunction towards the defendant. To implement the stated injunction, two Local Commissioners have been appointed to grab infringing items on the premises of the defendant.
Caterpillar Inc vs Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. & … on 19 August, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed a swimsuit looking for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction towards Defendants for infringing its registered Indian patents designs associated to fluid filter programs. The Plaintiff has a big world and Indian patent portfolio and gross sales of USD 64.8 billion in 2024. It is alleged that the Defendant manufactures infringing ‘STAL’ branded filters utilizing an identical half numbers because the Plaintiff’s merchandise. The Court granted the ex-parte injunction, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, promoting, or distributing the infringing merchandise, and appointed Local Commissioners to go looking, seize, and stock infringing items on the defendants’ premises. The case is listed for additional listening to on 24.09.2025 earlier than the Joint Registrar and 13.02.2026 earlier than the courtroom.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Anushka, Riddhi, and Srishti for the case summaries).
