Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: November 17–23, 2025
Ayushi Shukla
24 Nov 2025 2:19 PM IST
Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
Shroff Geeta v. Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design, IPDPTA/88/2023
FMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1518
Hemant Karamchand Rohera v. Controller General of Patents and Designs & Anr., Commercial Misc. Petition No. 11/2022
Fontaine Limited v. Berkeley Beauty Brands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1525
Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Adwin Pharma & Anr., IA (L)-27480-2024
Kamat Hotels India Ltd. v. Orchid Hotel and Hostel, IA (L) No. 33327/2025
SanDisk LLC v. Welborn Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1546
Nutrivative Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1557
Dr. Ashok M Bhat v. R.V. Pharmaceuticals & Anr., IA No. 3522/2025
Asian Paints Ltd. v. Vinod Satyaprakashji Mittal, IA No. 4134/2025
MHG IP Holding Singapore v. Club Anantara Suites and Retreat, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1568
SignatureGlobal (India) Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1540
Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Hari Shankar Bilwal, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1534
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1572
Saregama India Ltd. v. En.ssyou.tube & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1519
Sreedevi Video Corporation v. SaReGaMa India Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
RS Infotainment v. Mini Studio LLP, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Relaxo Footwears Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1529
Dr Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe Ashok Kumar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
Raj Shamani & Anr. v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1551
TV Today Network Ltd. v. Google LLC & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1531
HIGH COURT REPORTS
PATENTS ACT, 1970
Case Title: Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421
The Madras High Court set aside the Patent Office's refusal of patent application for “Graphic Representations of Data Relationship,” holding that the invention involved an inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) and was not excluded as a “computer programme per se” under Section 3(k).
Invention Requiring Destruction Of Human Embryos Not Patentable: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Shroff Geeta v. Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design
Case No.: IPDPTA/88/2023
The Calcutta High Court affirmed the Patent Office's refusal of a patent relating to human embryonic stem cells under Section 3(b), holding that the invention required destruction of human embryos and was therefore unethical and contrary to public order.
Delhi High Court Rejects FMC's Plea to Block Natco Insecticide Over Patent Dispute
Case Title: FMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1518
Dismissing FMC's request for interim relief, the Delhi High Court held that Natco had raised a credible validity challenge to Claim 12 of FMC's IN'645 patent. The Court found that FMC's earlier patent IN'104 disclosed the same intermediate compound, supporting Natco's Gillette defence.
Case Title: Hemant Karamchand Rohera v. Controller General of Patents and Designs & Anr.
Case No.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 11 of 2022
The Bombay High Court remanded a rejected patent application for fresh consideration, holding that the Patent Office failed to follow mandatory procedures under Sections 14 and 15, had not issued specific objections and passed a non-speaking order. The Court also held that non-disclosure of a prior review petition did not amount to suppression warranting dismissal.
TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999
Delhi High Court Bars Former Distributor from Selling CREED Perfume, Awards Rs 37.42 Lakh in Damages
Case Title: Fontaine Limited v. Berkeley Beauty Brands Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1525
The Court granted a permanent injunction and Rs 37.42 lakh in damages after finding that the former distributor continued selling CREED products and used the CREED mark despite expiry of the distribution agreement. Based on admissions and undisputed material, the Court granted summary judgment.
Bombay High Court Blocks Sale Of Diabetes Drug ELGIMET For Similarity To GLIMET's Mark
Case Title: Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Adwin Pharma & Anr.
Case No.: IA (L)-27480-2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 225 of 2024
Holding the marks phonetically and structurally similar, the Court confirmed an interim injunction restraining use of ELGIMET. It found likelihood of confusion in medicinal products and held that Griffon's coined mark GLIMET was distinctive.
Bombay High Court Restrains City Hotel From Infringing Five-Star Hotel Chain Orchid's Trademark
Case Title: Kamat Hotels India Limited v. Orchid Hotel and Hostel
Case No.: IA (L) NO.33327/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No.32915/2025
Finding deceptive similarity with the well-known “THE ORCHID” hotel brand, the Court restrained use of “Orchid Hotel & Hostel” and directed removal of listings using the impugned name.
Delhi High Court Grants SanDisk Permanent Injunction Against Indian Company's Copycat Trade Dress
Case Title: SanDisk LLC v. M/s Welborn Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1546
The Court granted a permanent injunction decree based on Welborn's undertaking discontinuing packaging similar to SanDisk's trade dress for USB drives and SD cards.
Delhi High Court Allows 'Nourish You' To Use Its Registered Name, Sets Aside Injunction
Case Title: Nutrivative Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1557
A Division Bench set aside a Commercial Court injunction, holding that statutory protections for the registered “Nourish You” mark under Section 30(2)(e) had been ignored and that BL Agro had not challenged the registration.
Bombay High Court Grants Fresh Relief To Nova Cream, Orders Rival To Cease Using Disputed Packaging
Case Title: Dr. Ashok M Bhat v. R.V. Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
Case No.: IA NO. 3522/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 386/2017
The Court found prima facie breach of earlier injunctions restraining use of packaging similar to Nova's trade dress and granted further relief, including search and seizure directions.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Vinod Satyaprakashji Mittal
Case No.: IA NO. 4134/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No.115/2025
Confirming an ad-interim injunction in favour of Asian Paints, the Court restrained use of ASIANGOLD, SUPREME GLOSS and similar marks as well as similar trade dress.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Anantara Hotel Chain, Bars 'Club Anantara' From Using Its Mark
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Club Anantara Suites and Retreat & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1568
The Court found visual and structural similarity with the well-known ANANTARA mark and restrained use of marks and domain names by a hotel incorporating name ANANTARA.
Delhi High Court Protects Realty Firm Signature Global Against Fake Websites
Case Title: SignatureGlobal (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1540
The Court restrained the operator of signatureglobal.com from imitating the realty company's official website, finding deceptive similarity and risk of fraud with homebuyers.
The Controller General accepted an olfactory trademark application for a rose-scent applied to tyres, finding it distinctive and graphically representable. This represents acceptance of 1st smell mark in India.
Delhi High Court Restrains Jaipur Hotel From Using Logo Similar To Beverly Hills Polo Club
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Hari Shankar Bilwal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1534
The Court held that Jaipur hotel's polo-player device marks were deceptively similar to the well-known BHPC marks and restrained their use.
Case Title: Ferrero Spa & Ors. v. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1572
The Court issued a permanent injunction restraining glass manufacturers from making Nutella shape jars, ordered handover of 3.05 lakh seized jars and awarded Rs.10 lakh as costs after finding deliberate copying of Nutella's jar shape.
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
Delhi High Court Restrains Websites Enabling Illegal Downloads Of Saregama India's Copyrighted Music
Case Title: Saregama India Ltd. v. En.ssyou.tube & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1519
The Court restrained numerous websites enabling illegal downloads (“stream-ripping”) of Saregama's copyrighted music and directed blocking of domain names and URLs.
Case Title: Sreedevi Video Corporation v. SaReGaMa India Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
A Division Bench held that the injunction claim was not automatically time-barred even though the declaratory relief was beyond limitation and remanded the matter for trial. The case concerned dispute over audio rights of soundtracks in certain Tamil, Telugu films.
Case Title: RS Infotainment v. Mini Studio LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 429
The Court temporarily restrained use of scenes and background music from the 2010 film, finding prima facie infringement of rights under Copyright Act.
DESIGNS ACT, 2000
Case Title: Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Relaxo Footwears Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1529
The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's injunction after finding Relaxo's slipper designs novel under the “instructed eye” test and Aqualite's designs identical in configuration.
Indian Army Secures Exclusive IP Rights For New Digital-Print Combat Coat
The Army announced design registration of its digital-print combat coat design, securing exclusive rights under the Designs Act and warning against unauthorised reproduction or commercial use.
PERSONALITY RIGHTS
Madras High Court Protects Personality Rights Of Musician Ilaiyaraaja
Case Title: Dr Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
The Court granted interim relief restraining unauthorised use of Ilaiyaraaja's name, image, likeness, voice and other attributes.
Case Title: Raj Shamani & Anr. v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1551
The Court restrained use of his name, image, likeness, voice forming elements of personality rights including through AI/deepfake content and ordered takedowns of infringing material.
Case Title: TV Today Network Ltd. v. Google LLC & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1531
The Court decreed the suit, restraining operation of a fake YouTube channel impersonating the journalist and misusing her videos and deepfake content.