Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: December 01–07, 2025

Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025

Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC & Anr. v. Assistant Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 76/2022

Rajeev KP v. Unais KK, FAO No. 118 of 2025

Izuk Impex v. M/s Five Star Health Care LLP, TM 1450/16

Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir Mukkaram Ali, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 458

Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Sunanda Greentech Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 1271/2025

Bignet Solutions LLP v. Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 1094/2025

Ganraj Enterprises v. Land Mark Crafts Ltd. & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 164/2022

Kailash Masala Industries v. Organic Khandeshi Food Products, AO No. 44 of 2023

Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. & Anr., CS(COMM) 565/2025

Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., FAO(OS)(COMM) 66/2025

Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Sangeetham House of Veg, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 467

Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemco Plast, IA No. 2165/2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 80/2024

Edible Products (India) Ltd. v. Shalimar Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., FMAT No. 189 of 2024

ITC Ltd. & Anr. v. Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd., CS(COMM) 119/2025

Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV v. Partha Chatterjee, CS(COMM) 1302/2018

Parul Ruparelia & Anr. v. Camme Wang & Anr., IA GA-COM/1/2025 in IP-COM/11/2025

Exotic Mile Pvt. Ltd. v. DPAC Ventures LLP, Commercial Appeal No. 617 of 2025

Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460

Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 466

Ajay @ Vishal Veeru Devgan v. The Artists Planet & Ors.

STATUTORY UPDATE

Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025

Centre Revamps Patent Penalty Rules; Appeal Period Now Begins On Receipt Of Order Instead of Date Of Order

The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025 substitute Chapter XIV-A and modify timelines for adjudication of penalties. Appeals must now be filed within 60 days from receipt of the order. All communications must be electronic and adjudicating officers must issue digitally signed, reasoned orders.

HIGH COURT REPORTS

Patents Act, 1970

Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Patent For Amylin and AstraZeneca's Sustained-Release Diabetes Injection

Case Title: Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC & Anr. v. Assistant Controller of Patents

Case No.: C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 76/2022

The Court upheld refusal of a patent for a sustained-release exenatide formulation, finding it obvious in light of prior art. It held the differences from D1–D4 were bridged by routine experimentation and failed the “technical advance” test under Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla. The Patent Office's 2018 decision was affirmed.

Delhi High Court Rejects Novo Nordisk's Injunction Plea, Allows Dr. Reddy's to Manufacture and Export Semaglutide

Case Title: Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: CS(COMM) 565/2025

The Court found a credible challenge to validity of IN'697, as semaglutide was disclosed in Novo's prior genus patent IN'964. It allowed manufacture and export but restrained sale in India until IN'964's expiry.

Trade Marks Act, 1999

Kerala High Court Grants Interim Protection To 'Bokashi Bucket' Mark, Bars Sale Of Identical Compost Bins

Case Title: Rajeev KP v. Unais KK

Case No.: FAO No. 118 of 2025

The Kerala High Court restrained rival trader from using the “Bokashi Bucket” mark, finding the marks and goods identical to registered mark. The Court followed Renaissance Hotel Holdings ruling that improper use requires injunctive protection. It restored the interim relief denied earlier by the District Court.

Delhi Court Lets Izuk Impex Challenge Validity of Health-Care Firm's '5 STAR' Trademark

Case Title: Izuk Impex v. M/s Five Star Health Care LLP

Case No.: TM 1450/16

The Court permitted challenge to the validity of the “5 STAR” mark under Section 124, holding the plea prima facie tenable. It rejected objections on delay and withdrawal, noting earlier cancellation petitions were dismissed without prejudice.

Delhi High Court Restrains Two-Wheeler Manufacturer From Using 'Destiny' Marks Similar To Hero Motocorp

Case Title: Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Sunanda Greentech Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CS(COMM) 1271/2025

An ex-parte injunction was granted restraining use of “Destiny,” “Destiny+,” and variants for two-wheelers. The Court found structural and phonetic similarity with Hero's “Destini” marks and held the adoption deceptive and misleading.

Delhi High Court Affirms Order Declining Cancellation Of 'HP' Mark Opposed By 'HP+' Screw Manufacturer

Case Title: Ganraj Enterprises v. Land Mark Crafts Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 164/2022

Dismissing the appeal, the Court held Land Mark a prior user since 2006 and found no evidence of continuous use of “HP+” by Ganraj Enterprises. It held territorial constraints on one registration cannot be read into another.

Bombay High Court Rejects Kailash Masala's Appeal Against Denial of Interim Relief in 'Mahalaxmi' Trademark Case

Case Title: Kailash Masala Industries v. Organic Khandeshi Food Products

Case No.: Appeal From Order No. 44 of 2023

The Court upheld denial of interim relief, noting repeated delays and inadequate material to compare marks. It held no prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss was established in favour of Kailash Masala.

Delhi High Court Restores Kohinoor Seed's Trademark Suit Against Veda Seed; Says It Has Territorial Jurisdiction

Case Title: Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: FAO(OS)(COMM) 66/2025

The Court held Delhi courts had jurisdiction because Kohinoor's marks were registered in Delhi and the marketing agreement executed there. Online listings accessible in Delhi also formed part of the cause of action.

Madras High Court Strikes Out 'Sangeetham House Of Veg' Trademark For Violating Earlier Settlement In Infringment Suit

Case Title: Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Sangeetham House of Veg

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 467

The Court found suppression of an earlier settlement requiring name change in obtaining registration. It directed deletion of the impugned registration, terming it inconsistent with an existing decree.

Bombay High Court Bars Chemco Plast From Using “CHEMCO” As Trademark, Allows Use As Domain Name

Case Title: Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemco Plast

Case No.: IA No. 2165/2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 80/2024

The Court restrained use of “CHEMCO/CHEMCO PLAST” as trademarks but permitted use as trade name and domain name due to long concurrent use. It noted attempted registration by the defendant but no dishonest adoption.

Calcutta High Court Says KMP Coconut Oil Packaging Looks Too Similar to Shalimar's, Upholds Injunction

Case Title: Edible Products (India) Ltd. v. Shalimar Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: FMAT No. 189 of 2024

The Division Bench found similarity in bottle shape, colour scheme and coconut graphics, creating likelihood of confusion. Given established goodwill and misrepresentation, the injunction was affirmed.

Delhi High Court Rejects ITC's Plea To Restrain Adyar Gate Hotels From Using 'Dakshin' Mark

Case Title: ITC Ltd. & Anr. v. Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd.

Case No.: CS(COMM) 119/2025

The Court found no territorial jurisdiction as no commercial activity occurred in Delhi. Both parties held registrations; hence exclusivity was barred by Section 28(3). Delay and the rival's long use also weighed against interim relief.

Delhi High Court Awards ₹1.5 Lakh To Tommy Hilfiger Against Kolkata Trader Who Sold Fake Products

Case Title: Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV v. Partha Chatterjee

Case No.: CS(COMM) 1302/2018

With the Kolkata trader set ex-parte, Court ruled that infringement and passing off were established. Counterfeit goods bore identical marks. The Court awarded ₹1.5 lakh as notional damages.

Calcutta High Court Denies Interim Relief To Indian Importer In 'PL SUPREME' Trademark Row With Chinese Manufacturer

Case Title: Parul Ruparelia & Anr. v. Camme Wang & Anr.

Case No.: IA GA-COM/1/2025 in IP-COM/11/2025

The Court held the Chinese manufacturer to be prior adopter and owner, supported by registrations and export records. The importer lacked goodwill and approached the court with unclean hands.

Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Asking GoBoult To Add 'Formerly BOULT' Disclaimer In Rebranded Products

Case Title: Exotic Mile Pvt. Ltd. v. DPAC Ventures LLP

Case No.: Commercial Appeal No. 617 of 2025

The Court upheld the requirement that “formerly BOULT” appear on GoBoult products. It found prima facie similarity between “GoBoult” and “GoBold,” justifying protection of established goodwill.

Copyright Act, 1957

Delhi High Court Closes Music Copyright Suit After Music Licensing Company Confirms Pre-1965 Songs Need No Licence

Case Title: Bignet Solutions LLP v. Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: CS(COMM) 1094/2025

The suit was disposed of after Novex stated it claims no rights in pre-1965 sound recordings. As the event used only public-domain songs, the Court found that no cause of action survived.

Madras High Court Strikes Down Wrongful Copyright Entry Over 'Sagar Homeo Stores' Logo

Case Title: Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir Mukkaram Ali

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 458

The Court directed expunging of copyright registration by rival trader, holding the store had earlier trademark and copyright registrations and continuous use. With trader set ex-parte, the erroneous entry was ordered to be removed.

Madras High Court Refuses To Vacate Interim Order Restraining "Good Bad Ugly" Movie From Using Ilaiyaraaja's Songs

Case Title: Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460

The Court refused to vacate the interim restraint on use of three Ilaiyaraaja songs. It held the composer entitled to protect his works from distortion and rejected arguments on ownership and delay.

Ilaiyaraaja Settles Dispute With Production Company After It Agrees To Pay Him ₹50 Lakh Over Usage Of Songs In Movies

Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 466

The Court decreed the suit based on settlement: the producer paid ₹50 lakh, may continue using songs in “Dude” and shall not use songs in “Good Bad Ugly.”

Personality Rights

Litigants Seeking Takedown Of Objectionable Content Must First Approach Social Media Platform Before Seeking Injunction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ajay @ Vishal Veeru Devgan v. The Artists Planet & Ors.

The Court granted ex-parte relief to Ajay Devgn against objectionable AI-generated content but clarified that complainants must first use IT Rules mechanisms. Direct court intervention without exhausting platform remedies may bar similar ex-parte relief.