This Week’s Top IP Developments and Key Legal Insights
DHC’s recent decisions on the Pisco GI Tag, comments on the draft CRI guidelines, DHC’s decision putting a stay on a judgement directing Amazon to pay ₹339 crore in damages and costs- This and much more in our weekly roundup of our blog posts, case summaries, and top IP developments in the country and the world. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
GI Protection in High Spirits in the Chile-Peru Pisco Saga
A 16th century drink – the popular grape brandy Pisco is at the centre of a Homonymous GIs registration dispute in India. The DHC has set aside an IPAB order (owing to some brilliant arguments by the appellant Pisco Producers Association A.G) permitting the registration of the GI “Pisco” in favor of the Peruvian Embassy, instead of the prefixed tag “Peruvian Pisco”, allowed by the Registrar in 2009. Tanishka Goswami comments on the interface of Trademark and GI law and registration of Homonymous GIs, while highlighting procedural complexities in the examination of the Pisco GI applications.
Comments on Revised Draft CRI Guidelines 2025- Version 2.0, really?
On 26 June, the CGPDTM issued a public notice inviting comments on the “Revised Draft CRI Guidelines 2025, Version 2.0.” Yogesh Byadwal does a rundown on the comments submitted to Patent office on the guidelines. The comments were drafted by Yogesh, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan and Swaraj Barooah. They argue that the guidelines, in substance, are no improvement over the previous ones and continue with the approach of diluting the bar under Section 3(k).
The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Contested Step Beyond Doha
Two public-health centric treaties separated by more than two decades. In this sharp take, Dr. Siddarth Jain explores how far the WHO Pandemic Agreement has actually taken us from the 2001 Doha Declaration. He argues that while the vision and vocabulary of the Pandemic Agreement show conceptual progress, the actual text reveals significant gaps between the vision and enforceability or realisation of the framework.
Other Posts
Procedure, Pleadings, and Platforms: DHC’s Stay in Amazon v. Lifestyle
A Delhi HC DB recently stayed the ex-parte Single Judge judgment imposing ₹339 crore in damages and costs on Amazon in a trademark infringement suit. Khushi Jain and Vishno Sudheendra examine how the DB’s stay order flags serious procedural lapses in the Single Judge judgement and recalibrates the contours of licensor and e-commerce liability in trademark infringement disputes.
Case Summaries
G4S Limited and Another vs G S 4 Security Management Private Limited and Others (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs are a global security services group that have been operating since 1989. They alleged that the defendants have been infringing their registered “G4S” trademark by offering similar services under the deceptively similar name “GS4”. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and observed that the defendants had merely rearranged the letters in the plaintiff’s mark. Additionally, they also copied the styling, which would cause potential confusion in a sector sensitive to public trust. Referring to the high stakes that are involved in the security services, the Court restrained the defendants from using the impugned marks and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
The matter pertains to a writ petition which concerns the registration of black rice as a Geographical Indication. On a joint request, the Court adjourned the matter to 27 August 2025. Further, the court also extended any existing interim order until the next date of hearing. Hence, they preserved the petitioner’s position pending further proceedings.
Diversey Inc vs Kamlesh Chaudhari on 15 July, 2025, (Bangalore District Court)
The matter pertains to a commercial suit filed before the Bangalore District Court. The plaintiff’s seek permanent and injunctions and damages against the defendants for infringing the plaintiff’s registered and well-known trademark “Diversey”. The plaintiff argued that the defendants have been using deceptively similar marks of “Divercy” and “Divency” along with a similar logo to exploit on its goodwill and reputation. The Court held that the impugned marks were phonetically and deceptively similar and amounted to trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. Additionally, the Court granted all injunctive reliefs and awarded ₹75,00,000 in damages to the plaintiff.
Uto Nederland B.V. And Anr vs Tilaknagar Industries Ltd on 16 July, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The plaintiffs, Uto Nederland B.V. and Herman Jansen Beverages Nederland B.V had alleged that Tilaknagar Industries Ltd had infringed their registered trademark “Mansion House” by launching a similar product under the mark “Mansion House Select”. The plaintiffs asserted prior and exclusive rights over the “Mansion House” brand, which is widely known in India for its brandy. Further, they argued that the use of the defendants constituted passing off and infringement. The Court held that there was prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between “Mansion House” and “Mansion House Select”. They also observed that TIL’s use of the impugned mark could confuse the public into associating the two. Therefore, an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted restraining TIL from using the mark “Mansion House Select” or any deceptively similar variation.
A Dutch company, filed a suit in 2009 seeking a permanent injunction against Tilaknagar for using the trademarks “MANSION HOUSE” and “SAVOY CLUB”. They alleged passing off and copyright infringement. UTO claimed it had conditionally ceded the marks to Tilaknagar in 1987, which were to revert back upon breach of supply conditions. Further, UTO had also assigned partial rights to Allied Blenders and Distillers (ABD), which sought to launch products under the mark in West Bengal.. The court found UTO had not established active goodwill or business in India and that the alleged reversion of trademark ownership under the 1987 agreement required separate legal proceedings. The court dismissed UTO’s appeal for an injunction and also denied Tilaknagar’s request to restrain ABD. As a result, both parties were allowed to use the marks, and ABD was permitted to launch products under “MANSION HOUSE” in West Bengal.
Venkateshwara Fine Chem Laboratories vs Saptagiri Packers on 11 July, 2025, Bangalore District Court
The plaintiff is a partnership firm that has operated since 1994 under the trademark “DIAMOND” for food-grade colour and flavour products. They alleged that the defendants had adopted a deceptively similar mark, “NEW DIAMOND” with identical packaging to mislead consumers. The Court found that the defendants had committed passing off by copying the plaintiff’s mark and packaging with an intent to deceive. The court stated this could lead to public confusion. The court cited visual and phonetic similarities and the defendants’ knowledge of the plaintiff’s goodwill to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the “NEW DIAMOND” mark and packaging.
Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd vs Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors on 15 July 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The suit was filed by Johnson & Johnson Ltd against Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar for infringement and passing off of their registered trademarks of “ORS-L” / “ORSL” as well as the associated trade dress used for flavoured electrolyte beverages. The plaintiff had alleged that the defendants use of marks and similar packaging was deceptively similar and intended to mislead consumers. Further, it was observed that despite an injunction order passed on 7 December 2023, the defendants had continued manufacturing, distributing, and selling infringing goods. Additionally, the Local Commissioners’ reports confirmed large-scale post-injunction violations. The Court held all defendants liable. Further, A permanent and mandatory injunction was issued. The Court also awarded over ₹1 crore in damages and costs to the plaintiff.
Asics Corporation Through Constituted vs Grandstep Enterprises on 12 July, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
A suit was filed by Asics Corporation for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement against Grandstep Enterprises. Asics alleged that Grandstep was manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods under its trademark/label. The suit was dismissed as Asics Corporation failed to prove its case against the defendant, even though the defendant did not contest the suit.
Sanjay Mehra And Anr vs M/S Pranav Industries And Ors on 9 July, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing their trademarks (SUPERON and VAC-PAC) and copyrights, and from passing off their goods. The court granted a summary judgment of permanent injunction against defendants no. 1 and 2, and ordered delivery-up of impugned goods and damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- against defendant no. 2, while the case against defendant no. 3 was settled.
Reliance Industries Limited vs Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors on 10 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court )
Reliance Industries Limited filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against defendant nos. 1-21 for trademark and copyright infringement. These defendants were manufacturing and selling FMCG like Poha and Wheat Flour using ‘RELIANCE’ and ‘JIO’ trademarks and artistic packaging, with sales facilitated by e-commerce platforms. Citing risks to consumer safety and public interest due to these products being for human consumption, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the primary infringers and directing the e-commerce platforms to delist items and provide seller details.
Play Games 24X7 Private Limited vs Www10Xbettcom & Ors on 10 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
the case primarily involves the plaintiff’s efforts to combat trademark infringement and the promotion of unlawful betting games. The plaintiff, Play Games 24X7 Private Limited, successfully sought to implead additional defendants (28-35), including websites that use their MY11CIRCLE trademark to lure users to illegal betting platforms or replicate it to promote competing products. The Delhi High Court allowed this impleading and extended an existing ex-parte ad interim injunction to these new defendants. This injunction restrains the infringing websites from using MY11CIRCLE or similar marks and directs Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to suspend/block specified infringing domains and disclose subscriber information.
Tata Sons Private Limited And Anr vs John Doe And Ors on 10 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The case involves Tata Sons and Tata Consumer Products Limited. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against John Doe defendants for misusing their ‘TATA’ trademarks and impersonating employees to defraud the public with fake dealership/distributorship offers. The court granted interim relief, restraining infringement and directing various entities (like domain registrars, telecom providers, and banks) to suspend or block associated fraudulent domains, phone numbers, and bank accounts.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited vs Ms. Sarita Trading As M/S Vensia Herbals Delhi High Court -10 July, 2025
This case involves a commercial suit initiated by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited against multiple defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from using the mark “VENSIA” for skincare and pharmaceutical products, arguing it was deceptively similar to their registered trademark “VENUSIA”. The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction, noting the potential for consumer deception and detriment to public interest due to the pharmaceutical nature of the products.
Srk Max Hospital And Ors vs Max Healthcare Institute Limited on 10 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court upheld a contempt ruling against SRK Max Hospital for violating an injunction related to the unauthorised use of the “MAX” trademark in healthcare services, imposing a ₹5,00,000 penalty. However, it conditionally set aside the permanent injunction decree originally passed due to SRK’s failure to file a written statement allowing SRK a chance to defend the case. This is contingent on SRK paying the contempt penalty and ₹50,000 in costs within two weeks. If paid, their application for delay condonation will be considered by the Commercial Court.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc & Ors vs Zydus Lifesciences Limited on 18 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Zydus from commercially launching its biosimilar of Nivolumab until the expiry of the plaintiffs’ Indian Patent No. IN 340060. The Court held that the plaintiffs made a prima facie case of infringement and the defendant failed to credibly challenge the patent’s validity. It rejected the delay argument, finding the suit timely. The Court also noted evidence of Zydus’s stockpiling of the infringing product, reinforcing the threat of imminent launch. The prior art cited did not disclose the patented sequences. Balance of convenience and irreparable harm favored the plaintiffs.