This Intellectual Property Rights Roundup of June 2025 provides an overview of important cases of intellectual property rights that made headlines this month, such as the Supreme Court’s decision on continued copyright infringement, Bombay High Court’s grant of injunction, Delhi High Court’s decision on misused trade mark and Kerala High Court’s compensation over deceptively similar mark, and more. These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, deceptively similar trade mark, misusing registered trade mark, and other aspects of intellectual property rights.
HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay HC quashes order refusing ‘WR’ trade mark to Yamaha for similarity with Honda’s ‘WR-V’
In the present petition, Manish Pitale, J., dealt with the issue of refusal to register the trade mark ‘WR’ to the petitioner, Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha (‘Yamaha’) by the Registrar/Examiner of Trade Marks (the ‘respondent’). The Registrar cited similarity with Honda’s ‘WR-V’ and stated that there would be a likelihood of confusion in the minds of public between the trade mark of Yamaha, of which the registration was sought, and similar trade marks already on the register. The Court quashed the cryptic order by the Registrar and directed him to advertise the application before acceptance as per Section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’). [Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha v. Registrar, Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2332] Read more HERE
COPYRIGHT
SUPREME COURT | Whether stay on Delhi HC’s 15th April order in PPL v. Azure Hospitality copyright case is binding on both parties? SC clarifies
While considering the instant petition seeking clarification of the Court’s previous order dated 21-4-2025, wherein it had put a stay on Delhi High Court’s order dated 15-4-2025, in Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2407 (impugned judgment); the Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, JJ., clarified that stay granted via Order dated 21-4-2025, on directions issued in Para 27 of the impugned judgment, would be binding inter-se between Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) and Azure Hospitality. [Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1381] Read more HERE
TRADE MARK
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in favour of Bima Sugam India Federation; restrains use of ‘BIMA SUGAM’ mark
In a suit filed by Bima Sugam India Federation, the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off of the mark ‘BIMA SUGAM’, Amit Bansal, J., stated that a prima facie case had been out on behalf of the plaintiff. Balance of convenience was also in the plaintiff’s favour and against the defendants. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Bima Sugam India Federation and restrained Defendant 1, all others acting on his behalf, from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any manner with any goods or services using the mark ‘BIMA SUGAM’. [Bima Sugam India Federation v. A Range Gowda, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4337] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court protects ‘BURGER SINGH’ trade mark in Franchise Violation Case
In a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to direct the respondent from using the mark ‘BURGER SINGH’ or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar, Jyoti Singh, J., protected ‘BURGER SINGH’ trade mark in the franchise violation case and directed that till the next date of hearing, the respondent should not use the mark ‘BURGER SINGH’ or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar for its goods and services. [ [Tipping Mr. Pink (P) Ltd. v. Prabhat Ranjan, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4347] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court rejects OSWAL’s trademark appeal for ‘ONE FOR ALL’ mark as descriptive and non-distinctive
An appeal was filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 seeking to set aside the order dated 14-12-2023 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, whereby, the appellant’s Trade Mark Application in Class 16, for the mark “ONE FOR ALL”, in respect of goods, i.e., books, that it publishes and sells, was rejected. Mini Pushkarna, J., held that in the absence of inherent distinctiveness, and considering the appellant’s failure to establish secondary meaning, the impugned order of refusal is well-founded in law, and merits no interference. [Oswal Books and Learnings Pvt Ltd v. Registrar of Trademark, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4113] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Know why Bombay HC granted interim injunction to ‘Parachute’ against ‘CocoPlus’ in trade mark dispute
In the present case, the plaintiff-Marico Ltd. filed an interim application against Defendant 1-Zee Hygine Products (P) Ltd., seeking interim reliefs for infringement of its registered trade mark/trade dress, copyright in the artistic work, and passing off of its three products “PARACHUTE”, “PARACHUTE ADVANSED” and “PARACHUTE JASMINE/PARACHUTE ADVANSED JASMINE”. A Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the defendant had prima facie infringed the plaintiff’s proprietary rights and thus restrained the defendants from using marks, packaging, labels, artistic works, and trade dress deceptively similar to plaintiff’s registered trade mark. [Marico Ltd. v. Zee Hygine Products (P) Ltd., Interim Application [L] No. 33099 of 2024] Read More HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court grants interim injunction to VOLVO in a trade mark infringement case
In a suit filed by the plaintiffs for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon the plaintiffs’ trade mark, A Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J*, granted ex-parte ad interim injunction while observing that the defendants wilfully misused the plaintiffs’ trade mark to encash on the plaintiffs’ well-established goodwill and name. [Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Ganesh Motor Body Repairs, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4549] Read more HERE
Also Read:
WELL-KNOWN MARK
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | No well-known mark status to ‘TikTok’: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling
Bombay High Court: The petitioner challenged the order dated 31-10-2023 passed by Respondent 1-Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, whereby an application for inclusion of the registered trade mark ‘TikTok’ in the list of well-known marks, was refused. Manish Pitale, J., affirmed the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks to refuse inclusion of ‘TikTok’, a registered trade mark in the list of “well-known” under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (‘2017 Rules’) as there was nationwide ban imposed on the petitioner’s application ‘TikTok’ by the Government of India pertaining to sovereignty and integrity of India, Defence of India, Security of State and Public Order. [TikTok Ltd. v. Registrar, Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2323] Read more HERE
DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay HC grants interim relief to ‘SOCIAL’ restaurant against ‘SOCIAL TRIBE’ in trade mark dispute
The present interim application was filed by the applicant ‘SOCIAL’ seeking remedy for trade mark infringement and passing off. The defendant ‘SOCIAL TRIBE’ was using the mark in a manner which was deceptively similar to the one registered by the applicant. A Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., after comparing both the marks, held that adding the suffix ‘TRIBE’ to the word ‘SOCIAL’ did not change the fact that the defendant attempted to infringe the registered trade mark of the applicant. The Court granted injunctive relief to the applicant by restraining and prohibiting the defendant from infringing upon the applicant’s registered trade mark. [Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Social Tribe, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2389] Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘MILNNA’ to pay Rs. 1 crore compensation to ‘MILMA’ in a trade mark infringement case: Inside Kerala Court ruling
In a suit for perpetual injunction and realisation of Rs 1 crore in damages, the Principal Commercial Judge, Thiruvanthapuram, Mariam Salomi, J*, opined that the impugned mark ‘MILNNA’ is a blatant copy of the prior registered mark of the plaintiff, i.e., ‘MILMA’, and the defendant is unjustly enriching at the cost of the plaintiff. Therefore, the Court granted perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from marketing, offering for sale, advertising for sale and selling any milk or milk products or allied products using the impugned mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade mark ‘MILMA’. [Kerala Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Jose George, CS No. 169 of 2022] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court grants interim injunction to Domino’s in trade mark infringement case
In an application for permanent injunction filed by Domino’s and its group companies (‘the plaintiffs’) against several fast-food joints with deceptively similar trade marks/names, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J* opined that in disputes involving edible products, the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower than that applied in other cases. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Dominos and restrained Defendants 1-15 from infringing the plaintiffs’ trade mark. [Domino’s IP Holder LLC v. Domnics Pizza, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4557] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court protects ‘BURGER SINGH’ trade mark in Franchise Violation Case
In a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to direct the respondent from using the mark ‘BURGER SINGH’ or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar, Jyoti Singh, J., protected ‘BURGER SINGH’ trade mark in the franchise violation case and directed that till the next date of hearing, the respondent should not use the mark ‘BURGER SINGH’ or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar for its goods and services. [ [Tipping Mr. Pink (P) Ltd. v. Prabhat Ranjan, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4347] Read more HERE