This weekly review is authored by Vikram Raj Nanda.
From unpacking the ‘laconic’ order of the IPO in Tapas Chatterjee, to the resurfacing of data exclusivity debates amidst the India–US FTA talks, and flagging trade secret concerns in the Sanchar Saathi application – this week had it all. Also, the 11th Episode of the SpicyIP Podcast Summer School Edition is now live on the YouTube Channel. In this Episode Sonisha sits with Mr. Ashwani Balayan where they talk about his transition from engineering to law, how a technical background offers a practical edge in patent prosecution involving complex technologies, and the motivation behind ALG’s knowledge-sharing initiatives. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know.
Highlights of The Week
Not A Saathi After All: Why Sanchar Saathi Rings Alarm for Trade Secrets
The Sanchar Saathi application has largely been analysed as a privacy issue. However, as Anjali Tripathi argues in this entry for the SpicyIP–jhana Blogpost Writing Competition, it raises a more serious and underexplored concern – one that could directly threaten the protection of trade secrets and confidential business information in India’s smartphone-first economy.
Data Exclusivity Debate Resurfaces Amidst US-FTA Talks, Evidence Still Missing
A recent CDSCO notice has reignited debate on data exclusivity in India as the country inches closer to a US–India FTA. Critics argue that there is no solid evidence to justify such protections, which could extend monopolies and delay generic entry. Md Sabeeh Ahmad explains why data exclusivity isn’t mandated under TRIPS and calls for impact studies before any policy shift.
Continuing the discussion on Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy, Yogesh Byadwal shifts the focus to Prior claiming, in part 2 of the post. He highlights how this is the most recent among a long line of decisions since Novartis that have continued to confuse infringement with disclosure in deciding genus-species disputes.
The SpicyIP TV Podcast SS Edn: Ep 11 with Mr. Ashwani Balayan
In the 11th episode of the SpicyIP Podcast Summer School Edition, Sonisha Srinivasan speaks with Mr. Ashwani Balayan, Partner at ALG India Law Offices LLP, about his journey transitioning from engineering to law, how a technical background provides a practical edge in patent prosecution in the light of complex technologies, and the motivation behind knowledge sharing initiatives such as the ones ALG holds. He also offers career guidance for students who wish to pursue IP litigation and prosecution.
Other Posts
The Fault in Our Fame – MP High Court Upholds the Release of ‘Haq’
Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the petition of Siddiqua Begum, daughter of Shah Bano Begum, to stop the release of the film ‘Haq’. Explaining the order, Vasundra Koul argues that this creates a faulty hierarchy of protection based on one’s fame.
When Orders don’t Speak: Analysing Tapas Chatterjee vs Controller
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Tapas Chatterjee vs. Controller has issued a detailed order setting aside the order of the Controller and the Single Bench, while also criticizing the IPO for issuing a ‘laconic’ order. While in many prior instances the IPO has received a reprimand for issuing an unreasonable order, this judgment requires special mention, as it comes from the DHC DB. Analysing this order, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan discusses the Court’s legal reasoning and highlights a crucial, albeit overlooked, discussion on the temporal gap that exists when analyzing unreasoned orders from the Controller.
National Law University, Jodhpur’s Journal of Intellectual Property Studies (JIPS) is inviting original, unpublished manuscripts for publication for its upcoming issue (Volume X, Issue I). The last date for submissions is January 25, 2026.
Case Summaries
Novo Nordisk A/S vs Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. & Anr on 12 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The proceeding is an appeal filed by Novo Nordisk A/S, against an order passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. Novo Nordisk claimed that Dr. Reddy’s infringed its Indian patent. The Single Judge agreed that infringement was made out, but also accepted Dr. Reddy’s defense that the patent itself may be invalid because it appears obvious when compared with prior art. Since the patent seemed vulnerable to being revoked under Section 64, the Single Judge allowed Dr. Reddy’s to manufacture and export the product only to countries where Novo Nordisk does not hold a patent. Novo Nordisk appealed this decision, arguing that manufacture itself amounts to infringement, even if the products are exported. The court held that deciding whether the patent is truly obvious requires detailed examination, which could not be done immediately. Since the Single Judge had granted only limited relief, the Court chose not to interfere at this stage. Instead of passing an interim order, the Court decided to hear and decide the appeal finally on 15 January 2026.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs John Doe and Others on 15 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in this case, addressed trademark infringement involving fictitious bookings and fraud. The Court allowed the Plaintiff to implead six new defendants and amend the plaint to seek injunctions against additional infringing websites, UPI IDs, and mobile numbers. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction directing banks, Domain Name Registrars, and Telecom Providers to freeze accounts/domains and disclose KYC details within one week.
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed bySporta Technologies (DREAM11) against Konstantin Krosnav and Mikhail Petrov. The Defendants replicated the Plaintiff’s website look, feel, and registered DREAM11 trademarks on the infringing domain ‘dream11.apk.in’. Since Defendants failed to appear or file written statements, their averments were deemed admitted. The Court granted a permanent injunction and ordered the Domain Name Registrant to transfer the impugned domain to the Plaintiff.
The Delhi Commercial Court decreed the suit filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips India Ltd. against M/S Electrical Master for infringing the ‘PHILIPS’ trademark, copyrights, and registered design. The Court found the Defendant’s product was a counterfeit replica, noting that the infringing goods seized were valued at over ₹59,00,000/-. The Court concluded that the resemblance between the Defendant’s product and the Plaintiff’s product was so visible that it could only have occurred through deliberate imitation, leading to confusion among average consumers. Since the Defendant failed to file a valid written statement, the Plaintiff’s case went unchallenged. The Court granted a permanent injunction, ordered delivery-up and destruction of infringing goods, and awarded ₹60,00,000/- in damages.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction against infringement and passing off of their registered trademark ‘G4S’. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s use of the marks ‘J4S’, ‘J4S Security’ and ‘J4S Security Services’ for identical security services was deceptively similar. The Delhi High Court held that merely replacing the letter ‘G’ with ‘J’ made the impugned marks deceptively similar. The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining use of the impugned marks.
R P Scherer Technologies LLC v The Patent Office of India on 17 December, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The present petition was filed challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s patent application relating to a formulation for oral delivery of poorly permeable proteins and peptides, on the ground of lack of inventive step. The petitioner argued that the invention was non-obvious and clearly distinguishable from the cited prior art. The Bombay High Court held that the issue of non-obviousness required scientific expertise beyond judicial determination and appointed an independent Scientific Advisor to assist in examining inventiveness over the prior art and listed the matter for further consideration.
G4S Limited & Anr v C4S Security Private Limited & Ors on 11 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against infringement and passing off of their registered trademark ‘G4S’ and allied device marks. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s use of the marks ‘C4S’ and the trade name ‘C4S Security Private Limited’ for identical security services was deceptively similar. The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiffs had established long-standing use, reputation in the mark ‘G4S’ and found triple identity with similar marks, identical services and consumer base. The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining use of the impugned marks and trade name.
The plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from publicly performing sound recordings without a valid licence. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s licence had expired and that the defendant continued to commercially exploit the plaintiff’s sound recordings thereafter. The Court noted that the defendant’s prior licence amounted to a prima facie admission of the plaintiff’s copyright and that continued use post-expiry of licence constituted unauthorised public communication. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr v Mr. Rajesh Sharma & Ors on 10 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present appeal was filed against an order of the Commercial Court dismissing the plaintiff’s copyright and design infringement suit and imposing costs, on the ground that the Local Commissioner had inventorised goods at premises not specified in the commission order. The Commercial Court had inferred collusion between the plaintiff and the Local Commissioner and dismissed the suit. The Delhi High Court held that the order was prima facie unsustainable, noting that no seizure was effected, there was no material to infer collusion and adverse remarks against a practicing advocate were unwarranted. The Court expunged the observations against the Local Commissioner, stayed the costs and issued notice in the appeal.
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction for trademark and copyright infringement and passing off of its ‘NAMASTE INDIA’ trade dress and associated marks. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ use of the mark ‘MOTU PACK’ and similar packaging for dairy products was deceptively similar and intended to ride on the plaintiff’s goodwill. The Commercial Court rejected the defendants’ plea of descriptive use and held that the overall trade dress was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion. The Court granted summary judgement, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and granted permanent injunction.
The counter-claim was filed by the defendants, seeking dismissal of the infringement suit and vacation of the ex parte injunction. The defendants contended that the marks used by them including ‘MOTU PACK’, ‘SADA CHACH’ and ‘MASALA CHACH’, were descriptive, generic and that the plaintiff had no monopoly over such terms. The Commercial Court rejected the counter-claim holding that the plaintiff’s registrations were valid and subsisting and that the impugned packaging and marks, when viewed as a whole, were deceptively similar. The counter-claim was dismissed by way of summary judgement.
Tata Sons Private Limited v Rajesh Kumar & Ors on 15 December, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against infringement of its trademark ‘TATA’ and associated marks, and for passing off. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No.1 had registered and used the domain name ‘www.trent–.tata.com’ to impersonate the plaintiff and fraudulently offer fake ‘ZUDIO’ franchise opportunities, thereby misleading the public. The Delhi High Court noted that an ex parte ad-interim injunction had already been granted and that the defendant failed to contest the proceedings. The Court held that the impugned domain name deceptively incorporated the plaintiff’s well-known marks to create a false association. The injunction was made absolute and directions were issued for transfer of the impugned domain name to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction for trademark infringement and passing off of its registered pharmaceutical mark ‘CEDON’. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of the mark ‘CEFDON’ for identical medicinal products was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion. The Court held that the impugned mark was phonetically and structurally similar to the plaintiff’s mark and likely to cause confusion given the medicinal nature of the goods. The Court found a clear case of infringement and granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
The ITAT ruled that Deloitte’s payments for Global Brand, Communications, and Technology were not “royalty” under the India-UK’DTAA. The court reasoned that these were facilitative and coordinative services for internal network use, involving no transfer of trademark or patent rights. Relying on the Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT precedent, the court distinguished copyrighted articles from the copyright itself for technology payments. Crucially, the court held that routine managerial support does not constitute “imparting information concerning commercial experience”, as it lacks the confidential, proprietary know-how required for such classification.
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction against Stratospheric Entertainment for infringing Phonographic Performance Limited’s copyrights. Despite a court undertaking, the Defendant, without authorization, broadcasted sound recordings from the Plaintiff’s repertoire. The Court dismissed the “unintentional” excuse, finding a prima facie case of infringement without a Section 30 license. Given scheduled holiday events, the Court restrained the Defendant from publicly performing the recordings until the next hearing.
The Gauhati High Court returned Brahmaputra Distillery’s appeal against an injunction in a “Raagi” spirit trademark suit. The Court ruled the appeal not maintainable because the High Court lacks original civil jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal must be filed before the District Judge, Jorhat, per Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. Since 2019 state notification was a repealed ordinance, declared non-est for using.
Kriti Dal Mills Ltd. vs Rajesh Lunkad on 18 December, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court quashed an order staying a subsequent commercial suit between Kirti Dal Mills and Rajesh Lunkad regarding the “CHAMPION” trademark. The Latur Commercial Court had stayed proceedings under Section 10 CPC due to a prior suit in Pune. However, the High Court found the Pune court was not a designated Commercial Court and thus lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief in a commercial dispute. Finally, the court ruled that Section 10 only applies if the previously instituted suit is in a competent court. The court also held that the Commercial Courts Act overrides the Trade Marks Act, the suits were not parallel.
Other IP Developments
- CGPDTM releases Annual Review for 2024-25
- Copyright Act, 1957 under review to address generative-AI related legal challenges
- Delhi High Court Maintains Interim Injunction in Bata’s Trademark Challenge Against ‘Power Flex’
- Ex Local Train vocalist sues his ex-bandmates over copyright infringement and non-payment of royalties
- A commercial court in Kerala directs filmmaker Major Ravi to pay ₹30 lakh in compensation for plagiarising the screenplay of Karmayodha
- Delhi High Court directs ‘HERO’ trademark infringer to pay ₹2.5 lakh to an NGO for obstructing a court-ordered search
International IP Developments
- Disney issued a cease-and-desist order against Google’s AI systems, alleging copyright violations
- Apple wins an appeal before a US Appeals Court against an order directing it to pay $502 million in the patent infringement suit filed by licensing company VirnetX Inc
- NY Times sues OpenAI and Microsoft in Manhattan federal court, alleging copyright infringement
Thanks to Arshiya, Tharun, and Pranjali for the case summaries.
