This weekly review is authored by Vikram Raj Nanda.
From ‘bulldozer justice’ entering the Gen-AI copyright debate to courts pushing back against overbroad foreign discovery requests, this week brought some sharp IP questions to the fore. Also, if you still haven’t sent your submission yet for the SpicyIP-Jhana Blogpost Writing Competition, this is the chance to do so! The deadline is 11:59 PM IST on 30th December. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Bulldozer Justice comes to the Digital Sphere: Looking at the GenAI-Copyright Report
The recent DPIIT Committee Report on GenAI and Copyright proposes a unique system of giving a blanket-license to all copyrighted content, to GenAI companies to train on, for a royalty share of their revenues. While it is no doubt unique, Swaraj Barooah argues that it is a heavy-handed approach that is severely problematic from several angles – academically, jurisprudentially, practically, and from the bigger picture political economy impacts that it would encourage. In particular, he notes that this also inadvertently follows a trend of transferring value and power to the hands of the few, at the cost of the many, by virtue of increased centralization of power over knowledge governance and production mechanisms.
The Madras High Court’s decision in Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Pfizer Inc revisits the limits of cross-border judicial cooperation in patent litigation. Tharun Tomy analyses the Division Bench judgement and notes that the ruling draws a clear line on when Indian courts may refuse assistance to foreign courts seeking evidence through Letters Rogatory, while also pointing out a few misses in this otherwise well-reasoned order.
Dear IP enthusiasts, we have received some really great and engaging entries for the SpicyIP-Jhana Blogpost Writing Competition. If you still haven’t sent your submission yet, this is the chance to do so! The deadline is 11:59 PM IST on 30th December.
Other Posts
Can courts grant interim relief even when material facts have been suppressed? In Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin, the Delhi High Court answered in the affirmative, granting interim relief despite suppression, while imposing ₹20 lakh in costs. Analysing the order, Pranjali Bhatt examines the Court’s nuanced application of the clean hands doctrine and explains how it differs from previous cases where courts have applied the doctrine.
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Mohalla Tech Pvt. Ltd. revisits the perennial question of territorial jurisdiction in online copyright infringement suits. Analysing the decision, Arshiya Gupta highlights how the Court appears to depart from its own recent reasoning in Vikrant Chemco, prompting closer scrutiny of how the cause of action is assessed.
Injunction or Copyright Strike: Examining the DHC Order in ANI v Dynamite News
The Delhi High Court’s refusal to re-block Dynamite News’ YouTube channel exposes the litigation strategy prevalent against digital news platforms. Analysing the decision, Md. Thahir Sulaiman assesses the limits of asserting copyright and trademark claims through a combination of court proceedings and YouTube’s takedown regime and explains the implications these moves have in curbing free speech.
Case Summaries
In the present case, a second appeal was filed under the RTI Act, 2005, challenging the refusal by the CPIO of the Central Board of Film Certification to disclose a certified copy of the Hindi film script of ‘Shamshera’ (2022). The appellant sought the script in the context of a pending copyright infringement suit, alleging that the film was based on his literary work. On appeal, the Central Information Commission held that a film script is a copyrighted literary work, disclosure would amount to infringement of copyright, barred under Section 9 of the RTI Act. The Commission further held that the script constituted third-party personal and creative information exempt under Section 8(1)(j), and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Dindayal Industries Ltd. v Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr on 22 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
An appeal was filed against an order of the Commercial Court vacating an interim injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The plaintiff claimed long-standing use and registration of composite trademarks containing the mark ‘DINDAYAL’ for ayurvedic products and alleged that the defendant’s use of ‘Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan’ was deceptively similar. The High Court held that even in the absence of a standalone registration, the plaintiff could enforce rights in a composite trademark where the impugned mark adopted its dominant feature. The Court found a likelihood of confusion and restored the interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction against the defendant for infringement and passing off of the registered trademark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of an identical mark for identical food products was likely to cause confusion. The Court held that the plaintiff was the prior user and registered proprietor of the mark that had acquired secondary significance. The Court found triple identity and granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining use of the impugned mark, while permitting the defendant to use the term ‘SCHEZWAN SAUCE’.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v Jin Hua Zhang & Ors on 19 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringement and passing off of the trademark ‘IKEA’. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were operating phishing websites using the impugned mark and images to deceive consumers. The High Court noted that an ex parte ad-interim injunction was already in force and that the defendants failed to appear or file written statements. The Court held that the unauthorised use of the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion, and accordingly granted a permanent injunction.
The present suit was filed as a quia timet action alleging apprehended infringement of the plaintiff’s Indian patent covering the compound ‘Ruxolitinib’. The defendant stated that it had not commercialised and would not commercialise any product containing the patented compound during the validity of the patent, while seeking protection of its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act. The High Court restrained the commercial use of the patented compound by binding the defendant to its undertaking, preserved the defendant’s research exemption under Section 107A and disposed of the suit on consent terms.
Chryscapital Advisors LLP v Ms. Raj Lal Kumari & Ors on 19 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off of its mark ‘CHRYSCAPITAL’, alleging that the defendants were impersonating the plaintiff through WhatsApp groups, mobile numbers, and fraudulent websites. The Court noted that the defendants had deliberately misused the plaintiff’s trademark and names to create a false association. The Court granted a permanent injunction, restraining the use of the impugned mark.
The plaintiff sought an injunction for trademark infringement and passing off of its mark ‘RACIRAFT’, alleging that the defendant’s mark ‘ESiRaft’, used for identical medicinal products, was deceptively similar. The High Court held that the marks were prima facie visually and phonetically dissimilar and that the shared suffix ‘RAFT’ could not by itself establish deceptive similarity. The Court vacated the ex parte ad-interim injunction and found no prima facie case of infringement or passing off and dismissed the interim application.
The Hershey Company v Hershey Technologies Private Limited on 17 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sought an injunction against infringement and passing off of its trademarks ‘HERSHEY’ and ‘HERSHEY’S’, alleging that the defendant’s corporate name ‘Hershey Technologies Private Limited’ created a false association. The High Court found a prima facie case of likely confusion and dilution of goodwill and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining use of the impugned trade name.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction to Manash Lifestyle against Flipkart and multiple unauthorized sellers for trademark and copyright infringement. The Court found that Defendant sellers were distributing counterfeit products through deceptive imitations of the Plaintiffs’ “DERMDOC” trade dress. Flipkart was directed to enforce brand-gating, take down infringing listings within 48 hours, and preserve electronic records of unauthorized activities.
Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Tapovan Foods Pvt. Ltd. on 19 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Tapovan Foods for infringing the “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” trademark. The court’s reasoning centered on a “triple identity”- identical marks, products, and trade channels. It found the defendant’s conduct prima facie dishonest, intended to exploit the plaintiff’s established goodwill and secondary significance. The court highlighted a strong likelihood of consumer deception, as unwary buyers might mistake inferior products for the plaintiff’s. Consequently, an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable injury to the plaintiff’s reputation.
Ganraj Enterprises & Ors vs Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr on 23 December 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court upheld an injunction against Ganraj Enterprises for infringing the “HP” trademark on self-drilling screws. The court labelled the appellant a “rank infringer” for using “HP+” and “HP®+”, replicating the respondent’s shikara packaging, and deceptively using the “®” superscript to mislead consumers. It rejected arguments that territorial restrictions from an earlier registration applied to the respondent’s subsequent pan-India registration. Affirming the registration’s prima facie validity, the court ruled that the appellant’s dishonest adoption necessitated relief to prevent consumer confusion.
The Calcutta High Court granted an ad-interim injunction to Himalaya Global Holdings against Shimla Drugs for infringing the iconic “Liv.52” trademark. The court found the defendant’s “Liv.72” mark and its green, white, and orange trade dress deceptively similar. Noting the defendant’s bad faith following a prior trademark rejection, the court determined that the likelihood of consumer deception necessitated relief to prevent irreparable injury.
Zino Davidoff S.A. v Ala Mode Ecommerce LLP & Anr on 22 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against infringement of its registered trademarks ‘DAVIDOFF’, ’COOL WATER’, and ‘HOT WATER’, along with trade dress and copyright infringement. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No. 1 was selling perfumes under the marks ‘COOL WATER PARFUM’ and ‘HOT WATER PARFUM’ through the website ‘antibrnd.in’, using deceptively similar trade dress. The Court held that the defendants’ adoption of the impugned marks and trade dress was prima facie dishonest and likely to cause consumer confusion. The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining use of the impugned marks.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against infringement of their Indian Patent No. 269841 covering the compound ‘Ruxolitinib’. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had launched and supplied ‘Ruxolitinib tablets’ in India under the brand name ‘LUCIRUX’ without authorization. The Court found a prima facie case of patent infringement and granted an ex parte ad- interim injunction, restraining manufacture, sale, and supply of the impugned drug.
Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v Ashok Kumar (John Doe) on 5 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against counterfeiting and infringement of their ‘HERO’ trademarks. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and selling counterfeit ‘HERO Genuine Parts’, including Element Air Cleaners, bearing identical UPI codes and deceptively similar packaging. The Court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and counterfeiting and granted ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining use of the ‘HERO’ marks.
Mr. Konidala Pawan Kalyan v Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors on 22 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against unauthorised commercial exploitation (sale of merchandise, misleading event promotions) of his name, image, likeness and voice across online platforms. The Court found a prima facie violation of the plaintiff’s personality and publicity rights and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining such misuse.
Phonographic Performance Limited v Trinetra Venture & Ors on 24 December, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The plaintiff alleged copyright infringement and as a quia-timet action for apprehended future violations and contended that the defendants were publicly performing their sound recordings at their restaurant without obtaining a licence. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and granted an interim injunction, restraining public performance or communication of the plaintiff’s sound recordings without a valid licence.
Dharamshila Belting Pvt. Ltd. vs Deepak Bansal on 22 December 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction to Dharamshila Belting against Deepak Bansal for infringing the “TURBOFLEX” trademark. The court identified a “triple identity”, similar marks, identical products, and shared trade channels. It found the defendant’s “TURBO TREK” mark used an identical font and the dominant part “TURBO”, creating deceptive similarity. Relief was granted to prevent irreparable injury and consumer confusion.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction to Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP against the South African firm Singh and Singh Attorneys. The court found the marks virtually identical, causing trademark infringement and passing off. Recognizing the plaintiff’strans-boundary reputation and use since 1997, the court held the defendant’s adoption was dishonest and intended to exploit the plaintiff’s goodwill. As the defendants failed to file a written statement, a decree was issued under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr M/S Steel India & Ors on 23 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction to Saint Gobain Placo for infringement of their patents. The court’s reasoning focused on procedural defaults and unrebutted evidence; as the defendants failed to file a valid written statement, the plaintiffs’ allegations were deemed admitted. Additionally, Local Commissioner reports confirming the seizure of over 40,000 infringing “GypLexra” profiles were treated as conclusive proof of infringement. The court highlighted the defendants’ bad faith, noting they were regular customers aware of the patented portfolio. To prevent irreparable loss, the court ordered the destruction of infringing goods and the modification of manufacturing rollers.
Novartis Ag vs Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors on 22 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction to Novartis AG against Novarise Gastro Bariatrics for trademark infringement. The court found the impugned mark “NOVARISE” deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s well-known “NOVARTIS” trademark, as both share the dominant “NOVAR” sequence. It ruled that generic descriptors like “Gastro” and “Bariatrics” failed to add distinctiveness to the defendant’s mark. Given the plaintiff’s reputation since 1996 and the related nature of pharmaceutical and medical services, the court identified a high likelihood of consumer confusion. To prevent irreparable injury, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or any similar variations.
India Mart Inter Ltd. vs Open AI Inc. & Ors on 24 December, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court found a strong prima facie case in India Mart’s suit against OpenAI for trade libel and selective discrimination. India Mart alleged that ChatGPT arbitrarily excludes its listings by blindly relying on a non-binding USTR report, while similar platforms mentioned in the same report remain accessible. The petitioner highlighted a government press release clarifying that USTR findings are not binding in India. Although Justice Kapur acknowledged the commercial injury and lack of logic in the exclusion, the court declined an ex-parte ad-interim order, noting it would resemble a final decree. The matter was adjourned to allow the respondents to appear.
The plaintiff, registered proprietor of the trademark and trade dress “PAURUSH JIWAN” for ayurvedic medicinal capsules, sued the defendants for selling counterfeit products bearing an identical mark and packaging. On the basis of unrebutted evidence, the Local Commissioner’s seizure of infringing goods, and the defendants’ failure to properly contest the suit, the court held that trademark and copyright infringement stood proved. Applying the stricter standard for medicinal products laid down in Cadila Healthcare and Midas Hygiene, the court found a clear likelihood of deception and public harm. A permanent injunction was granted restraining further use of the mark, while reliefs of delivery-up and rendition of accounts were denied for want of specific evidence on stock location and profits.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Wellhub India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 11 December 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Emcure, prior adopter and registered proprietor of the mark “OROFER” and long-standing user of “OROFER-XT” for iron supplements, sued the defendants for using the mark “ORAFER-XT” with a nearly identical trade dress for identical products. The Court found a clear case of triple identity, similar marks, identical products, and the same trade channels, leading to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion, especially given the medicinal context. The impugned mark and packaging were held to be visually, phonetically, and structurally similar, reflecting dishonest adoption to ride on Emcure’s goodwill. Holding that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case with a balance of convenience and irreparable injury in its favour, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the use of the impugned mark and trade dress.
Novex, assignee and exclusive licensing owner of copyrighted sound recordings, sued the defendant for unauthorised public performance of its repertoire at the defendant’s premises. The Court noted prima facie evidence of past infringement, including video recordings, an affidavit of the plaintiff’s representative, and unanswered legal notices. Given the defendant’s scheduled Christmas event and the established prior violation, the Court held the apprehension of repeat infringement to be well-founded. Finding a strong prima facie case, it granted ad-interim injunction restraining any unauthorised public performance of Novex’s sound recordings.
Shilpa Shetty Kundra v. Getoutlive.in & Ors. on 26 December 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The applicant, a well-known public figure, approached the Court alleging unauthorised creation and circulation of obscene AI-generated deepfake images using her likeness, violating her privacy, dignity, and reputation. The Court found prima facie material showing misuse of her persona through identified URLs and held that such portrayal, especially of a woman without consent, squarely infringes the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21. Emphasising that AI and technology cannot be used to digitally malign individuals, the Court held the harm to be serious and irreparable. Accordingly, it directed immediate takedown of the infringing URLs by platforms and ordered MeitY and DoT to pull down unlawful links, while keeping merits open for final adjudication.
Ranganathan Madhavan v. G Fimlz Studioz & Ors. on 22 December 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, a well-known actor, sought protection against unauthorised AI-generated deepfakes, pornographic morphed content, and commercial merchandise exploiting his name, image, voice, and likeness. The Court held that a celebrity’s persona has proprietary and economic value, and that AI-generated content created for commercial gain is not protected by fair dealing or free speech. Finding a strong prima facie case of misappropriation causing irreparable harm to dignity, reputation, and goodwill, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction. It directed prompt takedown of infringing content, delisting of unauthorised merchandise, disclosure of basic subscriber information, and compliance by platforms, registrars, and government authorities.
Other IP Developments
- Bombay High Court refuses interim relief in the ‘Saat Samundar Par’ song copyright row
- Author Puja Changoiwala sends a legal notice to the makers of the movie “Homebound”. Alleges the movie infringes the copyright in her literary work bearing the same name.
- Delhi High Court protects the personality rights of cricketer Sunil Gavaskar.
- Madras High Court directs the Indian Patent Office to allow an inventor to demonstrate his invention, despite the earlier rejection of his patent application.
- PPL files copyright infringement suit against comedian Kapil Sharma and Netflix over unauthorised use of three songs.
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal clarifies that film broadcasting licence fees will not be regarded as royalty under the India–Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Treaty.
International IP Developments
- Adobe faces a class action lawsuit in the US over the misuse of pirated books for training AI models.
- Anna’s Archive claims that it has scraped 86 million songs from Spotify.
- New Zealand to amend its GI laws to accord protection to products beyond wines and spirits, consequent to the India- New Zealand FTA.
Thanks to Arshiya, Tharun, and Pranjali for the case summaries.
