Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: November 24–30, 2025
Ayushi Shukla
1 Dec 2025 12:37 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., C.M.A. (PT) No. 43 of 2023
Living Media India Limited and Anr v. Amar Ujala Limited and Ors, CS (COMM) 1238/2025
Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited v. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 633/2022
ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors., CS(COMM) 221/2024
Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr, C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 57/2024
Hermes International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 716/2021
Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani & Anr., C.O. (COMM.IPD-CR) 16/2024
Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
Ashim Kumar Ghosh v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2025
Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2024
Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur, CS(COMM) 669/2025
Aristo Pharmaceutical Private Limited v. Healing Pharma India Private Limited & Ors., IA (L) NO. 26226 OF 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (L) NO. 25932 OF 2025
Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd, FAO (COMM) 175/2025
Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 353/2024
Softgel Healthcare Private Limited v. Pfizer Inc., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. v. Karma Mindtech & Ors., CS(COMM) 914/2023
Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents, C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., CS(COMM) 1038/2024
Irish Distillers International Limited v. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr., C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 77/2025
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Roopa Industries, A. No.1861 of 2025
Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CS(COMM) 1251/2025
EscapeX IP LLC V. Google LLC
Reliance Industries Limited v. Abhay Kumar and Another, IA (L) NO. 35071/2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 662/2025
Boman R. Irani v. The Official Liquidator of Ideal Jawa, OSA No. 2/2023
AJAY alias VISHAL VEERU DEVGAN v. THE ARTISTS PLANET & ORS
Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v. Joy Crizildaa, OA 904 of 2025
INTERNATIONAL REPORTS
US Court Orders EscapeX, Lawyers To Pay Google USD 2.5 Lakh As Cost For Frivolous Patent Suit
Case Title: EscapeX IP LLC v. Google LLC
The U.S. Federal Circuit upheld orders directing EscapeX to pay Google over USD 2.5 lakh in attorney fees, finding that EscapeX filed a frivolous patent suit and then prolonged the case with an equally baseless post-judgment motion. The Court also affirmed additional sanctions against EscapeX and its lawyers for multiplicity of proceedings.
HIGH COURT REPORTS
PATENTS ACT, 1970
Case Title: Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
Case No.: C.M.A. (PT) No. 43 of 2023
The Madras High Court set aside the Patent Office's order refusing Hi Tech Chemicals' challenge to an anti-stick coating patent owned by Allied Metallurgical Products. The Court held that the reasoning on obviousness was inadequate, noting that the Patent Office failed to explain why key objections on novelty, inventive step and technical advantage were rejected.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Medilabo's Patent For Neurodegenerative-Disease Drug
Case Title: Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2024
The Delhi High Court quashed the refusal of Medilabo's patent application relating to a pharmaceutical composition, holding that the Patent Office failed to examine the amended claims and wrongly applied the bar on “methods of treatment” under Section 3(i). The Court held that patentability must be assessed based solely on the amended claims, and mere references to the word “treatment” in the specification cannot attract Section 3(i).
Case Title: Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 162/2022
The Delhi High Court overturned the refusal of Trident's patent application for “air rich” yarn technology, finding that the Patent Office failed to assess the core inventive feature i.e., homogeneous pore distribution across the yarn's radial cross-section. The Court held that the refusal lacked a proper obviousness analysis, overlooked detailed examples in the specification, and failed to show how prior art taught the invention.
Case Title: Softgel Healthcare Private Limited v. Pfizer Inc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
The Madras High Court has overturned a Single Judge's order that had permitted pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a United States court to obtain documents and testimony from Chennai-based Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. The Court noted that the request amounted to pre-trial discovery which is barred in India.
TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999
Case Title: Living Media India Limited and Anr v. Amar Ujala Limited and Ors
Case No.: CS (COMM) 1238/2025
The Delhi High Court restrained defendant news agencies from using “Aaj Tak” in source code or meta tags after they stated that they had removed infringing links and did not contest the suit. A decree was passed based on their undertakings.
Case Title: Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited v. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 633/2022
The Court restrained Freecia from copying Visage Beauty's packaging, ingredients listing, usage steps and from using the mark “DERMOMELAN,” holding that the layout and textual elements had been prima facie copied. The Court rejected claims of prior usage of the term and granted interim relief.
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 221/2024
The Court confirmed an interim injunction against Pelican Tobacco, holding that “Gold Flame” and “Gold Fighter” cigarettes were deceptively similar to ITC's “Gold Flake” in name and packaging. The Court described Pelican's adoption as “prima facie dishonest.”
Case Title: Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 57/2024
The Court held that “Haveli” mark is publici juris and that no restaurant can claim exclusivity over it. It upheld the registration of “Amritsar Haveli” and “The Amritsar Haveli,” finding no deceptive similarity when comparing the marks as a whole.
Case Title: Hermes International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 716/2021
The Court recognised the Birkin bag's iconic 3-D shape, the word “Hermès” and stylised logos as well-known trademarks, citing extensive enforcement and international recognition.
Madras High Court Allows Udaipur Salon To Use 'Bounce', Rejects South Indian Chain's Appeal
Case Title: Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
The Division Bench upheld the vacation of an injunction earlier granted to Spalon India, finding the Udaipur Salon's mark sufficiently distinct and rejecting allegations of similarity. The Court said the appeal appeared aimed at delaying trial.
Case Title: Ashim Kumar Ghosh v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 48/2025
The Court held that “SoEasy” is suggestive, not descriptive, and therefore registrable. It set aside the Registrar's refusal and directed the application to proceed.
Case Title: Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur
Case No.: CS(COMM) 669/2025
The Court granted an injunction restraining use of “Gopal Gai Chhap,” “Cow Brand” and similar marks, holding that the rival marks were deceptively similar and that the defendant's products on interactive e-commerce platforms gave the Court territorial jurisdiction.
Case Title: Aristo Pharmaceutical Private Limited v. Healing Pharma India Private Limited & Ors.
Case No.: IA(L) 26226/2025
The Court refused injunction to Aristo, holding that its 'ACECLO' mark is derived from INN “Aceclofenac” and is publici juris. It found the competing mark ACECLOHEAL distinguishable and held no prima facie misrepresentation.
Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd
Case No.: FAO (COMM) 175/2025
The Division Bench held that OPAL and SHEOPAL'S are not deceptively similar when compared as a whole. The appeal seeking restoration of injunction was dismissed.
Case Title: Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 353/2024
The Court continued restrictions on use of “TESLA” for EVs, finding triple identity between marks, goods and trade channels and noting that the Indian company's marks suggested misleading association with Tesla Inc.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1038/2024
The Court held that online listings and interactive features could amount to purposeful availment of Delhi jurisdiction. It refused to return the plaint and directed that jurisdiction be tried as a preliminary issue.
Case Title: Irish Distillers International Limited v. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case No.: C.O.(COMM-IPD-TM) 77/2025
The Court ordered removal of the “BLUE SPOT” mark for continuous non-use exceeding five years, noting that the defendant was ex-parte and allegations remained unrebutted.
Madras High Court Jails Contemnor For Repeated Breach Of HUL's 'WHEEL' Trademark Injunction
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Roopa Industries
Case No.: A. No.1861 of 2025
The Court ordered three months' civil imprisonment of Roopa Industries' proprietor and attachment of property for repeated violations of injunction protecting HUL's “WHEEL” marks.
Delhi High Court Restrains Knam Foods From Using 'AL-BUSTAN' Rice Packaging, Terms It 'Slavish Copy'
Case Title: Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1251/2025
The Court found Knam Foods' packaging a slavish copy of the plaintiff's AL-BUSTAN rice bags, including colour scheme, script and layout. An ex-parte injunction was granted.
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To 'JIO'; Restrains Taxi Operator From Using 'JIO Taxi' Mark
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Abhay Kumar & Anr.
Case No.: IA(L) 35071/2025
The Court granted an ad-interim injunction against use of “JIO TAXI,” finding that it wholly incorporated the well-known “JIO” mark and lacked any valid defence.
Karnataka High Court Restores Classic Legends' Rights To The 'Yezdi' Marks For Motorcycles
Case Title: Boman R. Irani v. The Official Liquidator of Ideal Jawa
Case No.: OSA No. 2/2023
The Division Bench held that goodwill in trademarks cannot survive long after business cessation, overturning the earlier finding that Ideal Jawa owned the 'Yezdi' marks. Rights were restored to Classic Legends.
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
Case Title: Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani & Anr.
Case No.: C.O.(COMM-IPD-CR) 16/2024
The Court cancelled a copyright registration for an edible oil label featuring a “Swastik” device, holding it substantially reproduced Rajani Products' earlier artistic work in layout, colouring and device placement.
Case Title: Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. v. Karma Mindtech & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 914/2023
The Court held that inconsistencies or denials in an affidavit do not constitute perjury without unimpeachable evidence of deliberate falsehood. It refused Philips' request for criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Case No.: OA 1103 of 2025; C.S. (Comm Div) 299/2025
The Court had reserved orders on interim injunction application, noting arguments on remixed songs and alleged unauthorised use. Ilaiyaraaja has approached the court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the producers of Dude movie from using his copyrighted works and mandatory injunction asking them to remove such infringing content from the movie.
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Makers Of "Dude" Movie From Using Songs Of Ilaiyaraaja
Case Title: Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
The Court granted an interim injunction restraining unauthorised use of Ilaiyaraaja's songs in the film “Dude,” pending disposal of the suit.
PERSONALITY RIGHTS
Shilpa Shetty Moves Bombay High Court For Protection Of Her Personality Rights
The actor sought protection against unauthorised commercial exploitation of her AI-generated voice, deepfakes and likeness by various platforms.
Case Title: AJAY alias VISHAL VEERU DEVGAN v. THE ARTISTS PLANET & ORS
The Court restrained misuse of Ajay Devgn's images, likeness and AI-generated content including deepfakes and directed takedown of obscene material.
Case Title: Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v. Joy Crizildaa
Case No.: OA 904 of 2025
The Court declined to restrain Joy Crizildaa from tagging the catering company in her posts, noting she had not made statements about the company's business or commercial activities.
DISTRICT COURT REPORTS
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
Delhi Court Closes ANI's Copyright Infringement Suit Against YouTuber Thugesh After Settlement
The Court decreed the suit based on a settlement and directed refund of court fees. ANI had alleged unauthorised use of its videos on YouTube.