Stay updated with key 2025 High Court rulings on intellectual property law. This concise overview highlights recent cases on trademark infringement, passing off, brand name , copyright and patentability — Shedding light on how court are shaping IP rights and protections in India .
-
Intellectual Property — Trade marks and Passing Off — Trade Name/Brand Names — Essential and dominant part trademark “Diamond” dishonestly copied by respondent, former distributor of petitioner trademark register — Evaluation of — Rectification petition filed seeking removal/cancellation of trade mark “Green Diamond” — Held, dishonest adoption of somebody else’s trade mark and trying to ride on the goodwill created by the competitor who entered the market prior in time, deprecated — Copied mark removed Prior and continuous user of petitioner established — Held on facts, respondent started using mark in 2020, petitioner registered mark in 1975 — Respondent, being a former distributor of petitioner, well aware of mark of petitioner — Overall similarity between two marks in respect of same description of goods is likely to cause confusion in the mind of an unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection — Contention of respondent that word “DIAMOND” is generic and common, rejected — Petition allowed [Diamond Modular (P) Ltd. v. Yash Arora, (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 77]
-
Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — S. 18– Assignment deed — Effect of — Rights associated with assigned interest — Entitlement to — Plaintiff engaged in licensing public performance rights in sound recordings, claiming ownership based on valid assignment deeds executed by original copyright holders — Challenge to plaintiff’s status as copyright owner on ground that it is not the original creator — Validity of — Held, assignment of public performance rights by original copyright holders under valid deeds makes assignee the legal owner for those rights — Plaintiff has established ownership of public performance rights in sound recordings on basis of such assignments registration or formalities beyond valid execution of deed – Plaintiff thus entitled to enforce rights as owner — No requirement under law for further registration or formalities beyond valid execution of deed — Plaintiff thus entitled to enforce rights as owner—Petition allowed [Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd., (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 329]
-
Intellectual Property — Trade marks and Passing Off — Counterfeit goods — Defendants selling counterfeit surgical devices and medical products using plaintiff’s registered trade marks “SURGICEL”, “ETHICON” and “LIGACLIP” — Infringement of registered trade mark — Determination of — Held, plaintiff’s rights over the marks “SURGICEL”, “ETHICON” and “LIGACLIP” were established through registrations and long-standing use — Marks used by defendants were identical to the registered marks of the plaintiff and used without authorisation — A guide for distinguishing genuine from counterfeit products was recovered from defendants’ premises, demonstrating premeditated intent to sell counterfeit goods — Chat transcripts, invoices, forged authorisation letters and bank records showed international sales and financial gain — Local Commissioner’s Report and unchallenged electronic records confirmed deliberate and wilful infringement — Defendants’ actions posed a serious risk to public health and irreparably harmed the plaintiffs goodwill and reputation — Fit case for permanent injunction and award of compensatory and exemplary damages—Party allowed and disposed of [Johnson & Johnson v. Pritamdas Arora T/A Medserve, (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 489]
-
Intellectual Property — Trade Marks Act, 1999 — S. 29 — Infringement of registered trade marks — Unauthorised use of a well-known “personal name” — Infringement of — Held, unauthorised use of registered trade mark by party constitutes infringement of proprietary rights of trade mark owner as it misleads public and dilutes distinctiveness of mark — Owner of registered trade mark has exclusive rights to use mark and can take legal action against unauthorised use that causes confusion or deception among consumers — Protection of well-known marks extends to prevent unauthorised use that may harm reputation and goodwill associated with mark — Infringement actions are justified to uphold integrity of trade mark rights and protect consumers from misleading representations —Petition allowed [Ratan Tata Trust v. Rajat Shrivastava, (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 565]
-
Intellectual Property — Trade marks and Passing off — Broadly — Trade Name/Brand Names — Trade mark infringement — Exclusive rights over trade mark, worldwide — Use of mark similar or identical to registered trademark — Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement related to the use of similar marks, — Defendants adopting “RAMADA” mark as part of their corporate name “ClubRamada Hotels and Resorts Private Limited” and were using marks such as “CLUB RAMADA”, “CLUB RAMADA HOTELS AND RESORTS” and “CLUB RAMADA VACATION” — Defendants also registering domain names to promote their services Grant of permanent injunction — Legality of — Tenability of — Held, defendants had no legitimate rights or bona fide interest in using said mark — Adoption of mark done with full knowledge that plaintiff’s trademark rights were globally established, constitutes trademark infringement — Justifications offered by defendants found to be afterthoughts and indicative of bad faith — Defendants’ continued use of infringing marks despite ex-parte injunctions and legal notices demonstrated wilful infringement and disregard for plaintiff’s statutory and proprietary rights — Permanent injunction granted — Suit decreed [Ramada International, Inc. v. Clubramada Hotels & Resorts (P) Ltd., (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 749]
-
Intellectual Property — Trade marks and Passing off —Trade Marks Act, 1999 Ss. 2(zg), 11(6) and 11(7) — Well-known Trade Mark — Determination of Deceptive similarity — Permanent injunction — Grant of — Held, plaintiff conclusively establishing that its trademark “KUKA” has acquired the status of a “well-known trade mark” under S. 2(1)(zg) of the 1999 Act Mark in continuous use since 1938, enjoys wide geographical reach and generates extensive revenue in India as well as abroad — Plaintiff fulfils all the criteria under Ss. 11(6) and 11(7) for recognition of well-known trademark — Dispute between the parties amicably settled through mediation, with defendants paying Rs 6,50,000 to plaintiff Suit decreed in terms of the settlement agreement “KUKA” declared a well-known trademark — Damages of Rs 6,50,000 paid to plaintiff for infringing its trademark [Multani Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. S.A. Herbal Bioactives LLP, (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 765]