This topical roundup covers the most significant Digital & Tech and IPR cases of 2025, decided by the Supreme Court and various High Courts. From copyright disputes and personality rights to cybercrime and patent law, these rulings reflect how Indian courts addressed emerging legal challenges in the digital era..
COPYRIGHT LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN 2025
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.
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Copyright cannot be claimed on common ideas’: Copyright infringement case against Balaji Telefilms for ‘Dream Girl 2’, dismissed
The present application was filed by the applicant seeking an injunction to restrain defendant 1-Balaji Telefilms, from exploiting their film titled Dream Girl 2, alleging infringement of his script, ‘Kal Kisne Dekha’ which had been re-registered as ‘The Show Must Go On’, and for the breach of confidence allegedly committed by defendant 4. A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., upon finding that the rival works were completely different and the claim of breach of confidence was far-fetched, dismissed the application and awarded costs to defendant 1 and 5 to be paid by the applicant.
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Assignment of music rights in perpetuity includes exploitation in non-physical mediums
A suit was filed by the plaintiff that involved a dispute over the exploitation of musical works and songs from cinematographic films produced by Ralhan Productions. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were exploiting these works without proper authorization after the expiry of the assignment agreements. A Single Judge Bench of Manish Pitale, J., clarified the scope of perpetual assignments of rights and held that a contractual stipulation permitting an assignee to exploit film songs “by any and every means whatsoever” covered digital mediums including exploitation of works in non-physical mediums.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Injunction granted against Miss Malini Entertainment for copyright infringement in Kareena Kapoor’s ‘What Women Want’ Case
A suit was filed by Entertainment Network India Limited (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights, including, the plaintiff’s copyright in cinematograph and dramatic works, including, but not limited to the plaintiff’s rights in the show ‘What Women Want’ (All Five Seasons) produced by the plaintiff (Show), as well as all future seasons and any derivative works associated therewith, for which the plaintiff shall retain sole and exclusive ownership unless such ownership rights are expressly conferred or assigned to another party by the plaintiff. Mini Pushkarna, J., held that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction and in case no ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss.
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Plea to stay release of film “Sky Force” in copyright infringement case against script titled “Fire Bird”, rejected
In the present case, applicant sought urgent ad-interim relief for restraining defendants from releasing/broadcasting/exploiting film titled “Sky Force”, which was to be released on 24-01-2025. A Single Judge Bench of Manish Pitale, J., stated that applicant could not claim ignorance of various materials that were available in the public domain pertaining to the film “Sky Force”, at least since October 2023. The Court rejected the prayer for ad-interim relief and held that defendants would suffer immense loss, if ad-interim stay of release of the film was granted, particularly when applicant had approached this Court at the eleventh hour and just before release of the film.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Dynamic+ Injunction granted to JioStar against rogue websites for streaming India-England 2025 series without authorization
A suit was filed by JioStar India Private Limited (plaintiff), formerly known as Star India Pvt. Ltd., seeking injunctive and consequential reliefs against multiple defendants, primarily rogue websites, for infringement of its exclusive digital media rights pertaining to the upcoming India Tour of England 2025. Saurabh Banerjee, J., granted an ex parte ad interim dynamic+ injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the identified rogue websites as well as any other similar infringing platforms that may emerge during the live broadcast of the matches from unlawfully streaming, communicating, or making available the plaintiff’s copyrighted content.
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘No copyright on film title’: Relief denied to ‘LOOTERE’ film producers against web series with same title
In a copyright infringement case seeking temporary injunction, filed by the plaintiff against the use of the title “LOOTERE” for the cinematographic work, the Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., dismissed the application and held that copyright subsists in a cinematographic film itself, as well as in its literary work, thus, as long as the story of the two films is different, mere similarity in the title would not give rise to an actionable claim under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Copyright Act’). Thus, the Court stated that since title of a book or a film does not constitute a ‘work’ within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, no copyright can subsist in a mere film title.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | DoT and MeitY directed to block Sci-hub, Sci-net and affiliate websites in copyright infringement suit; Held Founder guilty of contempt for violating 2020 undertaking
In an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking direction against defendant 1, to restrain them from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff’s literary works. A Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora J., held that defendant’s action of uploading and making available for viewing plaintiffs copyrighted articles on Sci-Net as well as Sci-Hub was in violation of the undertaking dated 24-12-2020 and therefore defendant was prima facie guilty of contempt. The Court alsodirected the Department of Telecommunications (‘DoT’) and Ministry of Electronics and IT (‘MeitY’) to issue a notification to block access to defendant 1’s website, pass blocking orders within 72 hours, and ensure that access to the website is effectively blocked within 24 hours thereafter.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Ad interim injunction granted to Vinay Pictures; Restrains unauthorized use of ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ film’s intellectual property
In a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from engaging in unauthorized acts amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright and trade mark, etc., in relation to the iconic Hindi-language feature film “Andaz Apna Apna”, Amit Bansal, J.*, observed that the plaintiff had demonstrated prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction in its favor, and if ex-parte and interim injunction was not granted, the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss. Thus, the Court granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in the plaintiff’s favor.
Read more HERE
DIGITAL & TECHNOLOGY LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN 2025
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | X Corp’s challenge to Sahyog Portal rejected
In a civil writ petition filed by X Corp., challenging the constitutional validity of Sahyog Portal, for declaring that Section 69-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) and not Section 79(3)(b) confer authority to issue information blocking orders under the IT Act and that Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (‘2021 Rules’) is ultra vires the IT Act or unconstitutional, a Single-Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., held that the Sahyog Portal is not an instrument of censorship but a mere facilitation mechanism, and Rule 3(1)(d) is neither ultra vires nor arbitrary, as the Constitution permits reasonable regulation and cannot be permitted to be corroded in the guise of freedom of speech and expression. The Court further noted that the law must maintain a delicate balance to walk a tight rope between the perils of unregulated expression and the dangers of unrestrained censorship.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Technology boon effectively misused to evade law enforcement’: Pre-arrest bail denied in digital fraud case
In an application filed by the applicant-accused seeking pre-arrest bail in alleged digital fraud of Rs 1,75,00,000, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., while dismissing the same, held that such serious crimes of digital manipulation were on the rise and involved intricate methods and multiple communication devices to mislead unsuspecting victim which required thorough investigation. The Court stated that such a requirement ought not to be curtailed by granting a pre-arrest bail considering how difficult it had gotten to crack such cases due to the boon of technology misuse.
Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Need for Investigating Officers acquainted with technology to tackle emerging cybercrimes
While considering the instant petition seeking issuance of mandamus for constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct, supervise and monitor investigation in a crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(B) and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and Sections 318(2), 318(3), and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); the Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J.*, perusing the facts of the case pointed out that it has the colour of a cyber espionage. It is a multi-layered crime involving nuances of defence technology and concerns of national defence. Investigations into such crimes demand not merely procedural competence, but an amalgamation of technical expertise and forensic acumen. The Court pointed out that investigation of crimes of such magnitude cannot be done by the Investigating Officer who is now appointed due to lack of technical expertise and an ordinary investigation would amount to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate and imperative to constitute a SIT, as scales of justice must not tilt due to incompetence of Investigating Officers. “It is a lamentable reality that conventional Investigating Officers who are trained for the crimes of yesterday, would undoubtedly find themselves ill-equipped to grapple with cybercrimes”. The Court pointed that the crimes over the years have emerged in different hues and forms. In this digital age where crime knows no borders and malfeasance is coded with keystrokes, the tools of conduct of investigation of such emerging crimes must evolve. An ordinary Investigating Officer or a conventional Investigating Officer would not be so equipped with such emerging crimes to decode the labyrinth of cybercrimes. Therefore, the Investigating Officers who are also acquainted with technology or trained in digital forensics, those who can trace the invisible and pierce encryption and unearth the data buried or data theft, would be required to deal with the emerging crimes. “If the crimes are sophisticated, the Investigating Officers too shall be”.
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Digitalization of all temple accounts under Travancore Devaswom Board after Rs 40 lakh petrol pump embezzlement
The present Devaswom Board Audit Report (‘Audit Report’) was filed by the Joint Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board (‘Board’) , on the petrol pump embezzlement of nearly Rs 40 lakh at Swamy Ayyappa Fuels. The Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V.* and K.V. Jayakumar, JJ., noting that the Board administered approximately 1250 temples, directed it to submit a comprehensive report outlining concrete steps taken to fully computerise the accounts of all the institutions under its administration.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Cyberbullying can be as traumatic as physical abuse’; Bats for safer digital spaces for children
In an appeal filed to assail the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- 1, POCSO, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’), a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarna Kanta Sharma J., while upholding the judgment of Trial Court observed that creating a safe environment for children cannot be restricted to physical spaces alone and equal protection be extended to digital spaces also especially given increased online activity post-COVID. The Court observed that cyber threats, even without physical contact, cause real and lasting trauma, warranting strong deterrence. The Court further observed that the crime involved a deliberate misuse of modern technology, however, it was reassuring that the same forensic and technical expertise enabled agencies to trace the crime and establish a clear chain of electronic evidence. The Court also noted the severe psychological impact of such acts on children, affecting their mental health, dignity, and self-esteem.
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Digital Crimes Can Destroy Lives’: bail denied to accused for circulating indecent photographs via WhatsApp
In a bail application filed by the accused in jail since 09-01-2025 for offences under Sections 74, 352, 351(2), 64(1) Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 67-A Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) a Single Judge Bench of Ajay Bhanot, J. refused to grant bail. The Court noted that the accused had allegedly circulated indecent photographs of the victim via WhatsApp. Some of the images had been recovered and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL’) for examination, and the FSL report was awaited. Given the grave nature of the offence and the likelihood of the accused’s involvement, the Court held that no case for bail was made out at this stage.
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Right to digital access intrinsic component of right to life & liberty’; Directives issued to ease Digital KYC for acid attack victims/visually impaired
In a significant ruling, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., laid down 20 Directions in order to make the process of digital KYC accessible to persons with disabilities, especially facial/ eye disfigurements due to acid attacks and visual impairments. The Court further held that inaccessibility of digital KYC for persons with disabilities due to digital platforms not being compatible to with screen readers; crucial information being presented in visual formats without alternative text etc., such significantly hinder the ability of persons with disabilities to work, learn, and engage with society, thereby violating their right to equal opportunity and full participation as guaranteed under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and national disability laws. These barriers collectively amount to a denial of equal access and violate the accessibility mandates under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and results in economic and social marginalization. The Court pointed out that bridging the digital divide is no longer merely a matter of policy discretion but has become a constitutional imperative to secure a life of dignity, autonomy and equal participation in public life. The right to digital access, therefore, emerges as an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty, necessitating that the State proactively design and implement inclusive digital ecosystems that serve not only the privileged but also the marginalized, those who have been historically excluded.
Read more HERE
PATENT LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN 2025
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Patent rejection can’t be based on health or morality without scientific proof
An appeal was filed by ITC Limited (appellant) challenging the order dated 21-08-2024, whereby the appellant’s patent application titled “A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol” was rejected under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 on the ground that the invention causes serious prejudice to human life, health, public order, and morality. Ravi Krishan Kapur, J., held that the impugned order is unsustainable and set aside as the subject invention is contrary to public order and morality is unreasoned, cryptic and without any basis.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Simplicity no bar to patentability of an invention’; Vertical Rotary Parking System application remanded to Controller for de novo consideration
In an appeal filed under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘Patents Act’) against the order, passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs (‘Controller’), by way of which, the Controller rejected the appellant’s Indian Patent Application (‘subject application’), under Section 15 of the Patents Act, a single judge bench of Mini Pushkarna J. remanded the matter to the Controller for de novo consideration, to be completed and order being passed within four months, uninfluenced by the impugned order.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | S. 104A of Patents Act can be invoked at interim stage for disclosure of manufacturing process : Roche’s plea seeking disclosure of Zydus’s ‘Sigrima’ process
In a suit filed by F Hoffmann Roche Ltd. and Genentech (‘collectively referred to as the Roche Group’) seeking access to information shared with members of a confidentiality club for claim mapping of its formulation and manufacturing process of the product ‘Sigrima’ used for treating breast cancer , the Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that Roche Group are not entitled to access the Zydus Lifesciences Limited (‘Zydus’) manufacturing process, as they had failed to meet the mandatory requirements under Section 104-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘the Act’). The Court further held that Section 104A may be used even at an interim stage to seek disclosure of process employed by Zydus and would prevail over provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) relating to discovery and disclosure.
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Failure to record findings on provisional specification vitiates Patent rejection order
While considering an application filed in 2014 seeking patent protection for a herbicidal emulsifiable concentrate (‘EC’) combining pendimethalin and metribuzin, a Single Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., held that the rejection order was vitiated as it failed to record findings on significant objections. The Court observed that the provisional specification disclosed only a suspo-emulsion (‘SE’) formulation and even asserted that SE was superior to EC and emphasised that later claims referring to EC formulations were not fairly based on the provisional specification. Noting further that several prior art documents and affidavits were ignored, the Court set aside the order and directed that the matter be reconsidered by a different officer through a speaking order within four months.
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Intra-court appeal not maintainable in patent disputes; Commercial Courts Act overrides Letters Patent of High Court
In an appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the rejection of a patent application, the Division Bench comprising S.M. Subramaniam* and C. Kumarappan, JJ., held that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against a judgment passed in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘Patents Act’), since appeals in commercial disputes are governed exclusively by Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘Commercial Courts Act’). Observing that the Commercial Courts Act expressly overrides the Letters Patent, the Court upheld the Registry’s objection and rejected the appeal.
Read more HERE
PERSONALITY RIGHTS CASES IN 2025
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim injunction protecting Aishwarya Rai’s Personality Rights; Directs blocking of all infringing websites, platforms and YouTube channels
In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), wherein the plaintiff, Aishwarya Rai, sought a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 9 from infringement of copyright, performer’s rights, misappropriation of Personality Rights and passing off, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the unauthorised use of Aishwarya Rai’s persona constituted an infringement of her Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Aishwarya Rai and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites, platforms and YouTube channels disseminating content that violates her Personality Rights.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim injunction in favour of Abhishek Bachchan to protect his Personality Rights
In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the plaintiff, Abhishek Bachchan, sought a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 14 from infringement of copyright, performer’s rights, misappropriation of Personality Rights and passing off, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the unauthorised use of Abhishek Bachchan’s persona constituted an infringement of his Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Abhishek Bachchan and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites, platforms and YouTube channels disseminating content violating his Personality Rights.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Karan Johar’s Personality Rights were protected; interim injunction granted
In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the plaintiff, Karan Johar, sought a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 13 from infringement of copyright, performer’s rights, misappropriation of Personality Rights and passing off, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh, J, held that the unauthorized use of Karan Johar’s persona constituted an infringement of his Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favor of Karan Johar and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites, platforms and social media accounts disseminating content that violate his Personality Rights.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Known face in content creation’; podcast host Raj Shamani’s personality rights protected
While considering a suit filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking ad-interim injunction restraining trade mark infringement, passing off and misappropriation of personality and performer’s rights of content creator Raj Shamani (Plaintiff 1), the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that Raj Shamani is a known face in the field of content creation in India and has attained sufficient goodwill and reputation. Thus, the Court restrained the defendants from misusing Raj Shamani’s persona, name, image, likeness or voice in any manner for any personal or commercial use.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Permanent injunction granted to news anchor Anjana Om Kashyap against Fake YouTube Impersonation
In an application for permanent injunction for violation of intellectual property rights, disclosure against impersonation and misuse of personality rights of Plaintiff 2, Anjana Om Kashyap, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, granted permanent injunction in favour of the news anchor. Since the YouTube Channel had already been disabled by Defendant 1, Google LLC, the Court did not pass any further orders regarding the same.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim injunction to actor Ajay Devgan in Personality Rights case
In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by the popular actor Ajay Devgan for protection of his personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that the unauthorised use of the actor’s name, image and persona constituted an infringement of his Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Ajay Devgan and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites and disseminating content that violated his Personality Rights.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim injunction granted to Asha Bhosle protecting her Personality Rights; Orders blocking of infringing websites, platforms and YouTube videos
The present interim application was filed in a Commercial Suit instituted by Asha Bhosle, seeking an injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 6 from infringement of her copyright and performer’s rights and the misappropriation of her Personality Rights. A Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., while observing that unauthorizedly using Asha Bhosle’s persona amounted to infringement of her Personality Rights, granted a temporary injunction in favour of Asha Bhosle and directed that any violative content be taken down, and the infringing websites, platforms and YouTube channels be blocked.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim injunction to Telugu Actor Nagarjuna in Personality Rights case granted; Misuse of his name, image, and voice without consent restrained
In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by the popular actor Akkineni Nagarjuna for protection of his personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the unauthorised use of the actor’s name, image and persona constituted an infringement of his Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Akkineni Nagarjuna and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites and disseminating content that violated his Personality Rights.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘The Art of Living’ Guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Personality Rights protected
In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the plaintiff, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar sought protection of his Personality Rights, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, granted a John Doe injunction in favor of Ravi Shankar restricting Defendant 1 from creating and disseminating AI generated videos of the plaintiff.
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | [Infringement of Personality Rights] Meta and Telegram ordered to remove accounts exploiting classical dancer Anita Ratnam’s photos and audio for commercial gain
In a suit filed seeking relief in respect of alleged infringement of the personality rights of classical dancer Dr Anita R Ratnam, she has presented multiple interim applications seeking injunctive relief in addition to the application for combination of causes of action, the Single Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J. concluded that the celebrity status and personality rights of Dr. Ratnam had been misused for commercial purposes. Consequently, the Court issued an interim injunction directing Meta and Telegram to take down the links.
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘This case warrants immediate grant of ex-parte ad-interim relief’; Suniel Shetty protected from AI deepfakes and misuse of persona
The present application was filed by Suniel Shetty seeking protection of his personality rights, privacy rights and the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and as well as for the protection of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. A Single Judge Bech of Arif S. Doctor, J., held that Suniel Shetty had made a prima facie case and if the ad-interim relief was not granted, he would suffer irreparable injury and harm. Therefore, the Court granted ex-parte interim relief to Suniel Shetty, restricting the defendants from utilizing or infringing uniquely identifiable attribute, including through Artificial Intelligence generated content, deepfake videos, voice cloned audio, etc. The Defendants were also directed to take down/remove/disable access to such infringing listings/pages/content.
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Realistic AI deepfake video targeting Akshay Kumar, condemned; Urgent takedown ordered to protect his personality rights and public safety
In the present application, actor Akshay Kumar sought protection of his personality rights, privacy rights, and the right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as protection of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. A Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., while granting ex parte interim relief, held that Akshay Kumar possessed an inherent and enforceable right to control, protect, and commercially exploit his personality, and that any unauthorised use constituted a violation of both his personality/publicity rights and his fundamental rights under the Constitution. The Court, therefore, directed that such content be removed from the public domain immediately, in both Akshay Kumar’s and the larger public interest.
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘John Doe’ granted injunction to Ankur Warikoo against AI & Deepfake misuse of identity and brand ‘Warikoo’
In a suit was filed by Ankur Warikoo (plaintiff 1) a prominent personal finance educator, digital content creator, best-selling author, and motivational speaker seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of personality and publicity rights and passing off, along with other ancillary reliefs, Amit Bansal, J., granted a John Doe injunction restraining unknown persons from misusing his name, image, voice, or likeness including through AI or deepfake technology for commercial or personal gain and misuse of the registered mark ‘Warikoo’ and directed social media platforms to take down infringing content within 36 hours.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim protection granted for Sadhguru’s personality rights; Misuse of his rights through AI restrains
In a petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction for passing off, violation of common law rights, misappropriation of personality, publicity rights etc., Saurabh Banerjee, J.*, stated that the systematic, organised and intentional nature of the infringement, and the regularity and consistency with which the infringed content was being updated/ uploaded on the ‘rogue websites’ showed the extent of the violation of Sadhguru’s rights in real time. Therefore, the Court stated that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case in their favour and if an ex parte ad interim injunction was not granted, the plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable loss and injury. Thus, the Court passed interim injunction in the plaintiffs’ favour.
Read more HERE
TRADE MARK CASE LAWS IN 2025
DELHI HIGH COURT | EBC’s iconic ‘Coat-Pocket Constitution’ protected; ‘Rupa Publications’ injuncted from passing off deceptively similar edition
In an application filed by EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd (plaintiffs) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an interim and temporary injunction against Rupa Publications India Pvt Ltd (defendant), Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., granted ex parte ad-interim injunction against defendants from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner, the plaintiffs flagship ‘coat pocket’ edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India in a trade dress similar to that used by the plaintiffs in the iconic red and black style.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | EBC’s iconic ‘Coat-Pocket Constitution’ protected; ‘Professional Publishers’ injuncted from passing off deceptively similar edition
In an application filed by EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd (plaintiffs) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an interim and temporary injunction against Professional Publishers (defendant), Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., granted ex parte ad-interim injunction against defendants from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner, the plaintiffs flagship ‘coat pocket’ edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India in a trade dress similar to that used by the plaintiffs in the iconic red and black style.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | EBC’s iconic ‘Coat-Pocket Constitution’ protected; ‘Young Global Publishers’ injuncted from passing off deceptively similar edition
In an application filed by EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd (plaintiffs) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an interim and temporary injunction against Young Global Publishers (defendant), Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., granted ex parte ad-interim injunction against defendants from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner, the plaintiffs flagship ‘coat pocket’ edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India in a trade dress similar to that used by the plaintiffs in the iconic red and black style.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Can infringement action be filed against a registered trade mark
In an appeal against a commercial Court order, wherein the Court had granted an injunction restraining the appellants from using their registered trade mark ‘VAIDYA RISHI’, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ, held that no action for infringement can lie against a proprietor of a registered trade mark. Thus, the Court set aside the order of injunction against the appellants.
Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Trade Mark cannot be removed from official records without Notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act
In a civil writ petition, filed by the petitioner against the removal of the Trade Mark by the respondent from their official record, a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that the removal of a registered trade mark from official records without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act’), and Rule 58 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (‘Rules’), was not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Court quashed the removal, directing the respondents to pass an appropriate fresh order after compliance with the afore-stated provisions.
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | S. 159(5) provide no shield against infringement of well-known trademark; Use of “FEDEX” as corporate name restrained
In an interim application seeking injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘FEDEX’ or any deceptively similar mark as part of their corporate names, trade names, domain names or in any other manner whatsoever, a Single-Judge bench of R.I. Chagla, J., allowed the interim application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Trade Mark registration or Online Listing alone doesn’t confer Territorial Jurisdiction in infringement suit
In appeal challenging Single Judge’s order allowing an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), whereby the plaint, in a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement and passing off, was directed to be returned for presentation before the appropriate court, a Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., affirmed the impugned judgment and held that the Single Judge’ Judgment that this Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit cannot be faulted.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Use of ‘Masaba’ mark temporarily restrained; Interim protection granted to House of Masaba in a trade mark case
In a suit filed by House of Masaba, (‘the plaintiff’), to restrain the defendants from using the trade mark ‘MASABA’ for the identical goods and services as that of the plaintiff, i.e., retail of apparels and accessories for men and women, Amit Bansal, J., restrained the defendants and all the others acting on behalf of the defendants from using the impugned trade marks “MASABA”/ “MASABA COUTURE”/ and Instagram handles —— “masabacoutureofficial.co” and “masabacouture.in” or any other trade mark/trade name as might be identical to or was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade marks.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ₹10 Lakh damages granted in Ramada Trademark infringement case; Club Ramada restrained from using ‘Ramada’ MarkÝ
A suit was filed by ‘Ramada International Inc.’ (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining ‘ClubRamada Hotels and Resorts Private Limited’ (defendants) from infringing and using the impugned marks i.e., ‘CLUB RAMADA’, ‘CLUB RAMADA HOTELS AND RESORTS’, ‘CLUB RAMADA VACATION’ and ‘HOLIDAYS BY CLUB RAMADA VACATION’ and any other deceptively similar mark to that of plaintiff’s. Mini Pushkarna, J., granted permanent injunction to the plaintiff in its favour restraining the defendants from using the infringing ‘Ramada’ mark and awarding ₹10 lakh in damages for trademark infringement.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Permanent injunction and Rs. 5 lakh damages to Harley-Davidson in trademark suit against Red Rose Industries
A suit was filed by the H-D U. S. A., LLC (plaintiff) seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademarks and copyright of the plaintiff, passing off their goods and services as that of the plaintiff, and other ancillary reliefs. Amit Bansal, J., granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in any goods bearing the infringing mark/logo or any mark/logo deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademarks. The Court also directed the destruction of all infringing goods in the defendant’s possession and awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages and costs to the plaintiff.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘BURGER SINGH’ trademark protected 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.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Dynamic Injunction granted against Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, Meesho & Others in Reliance trademark suit
A suit was filed by Reliance Industries Limited (plaintiff) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant 1 to 21(and such other entities/ individual during the course of the proceeding to have been engaged in infringing the Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights) from using the mark ‘RELIANCE’, ‘JIO’ and any other mark identical/ deceptively similar marks, including their variants, as also restraining the said defendants from using any packaging incorporating plaintiff’s artistic work thereby amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright. Saurabh Banerjee, J., restrained defendant 1 to 21 (and such other entities/ individuals, their directors, partners, servants, agents, dealers, retailers, distributors and all other persons acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, marketing/ advertising, adopting, using and / or dealing in any manner with respect to any product and service under the mark ‘RELIANCE’ and ‘JIO’ Formative Trademarks or any other identical/ deceptively similar to mark ‘RELIANCE’ and ‘JIO’ including the plaintiff’s ‘RELIANCE’ and ‘JIO’ Formative Trademarks.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘YATRA’ is a generic and descriptive word, cannot be monopolized: Relief denied to travel company in trade mark infringement suit
In an application seeking injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the trade mark, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution, unfair competition by directly or indirectly using, selling, advertising, mentioning, or dealing in any manner, including as part of a domain name, the Marks ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’ or ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ (‘impugned trade marks’), a Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia J., observed that the word ‘YATRA’, was a generic and commonly descriptive word, meaning ‘travel’ in Hindi and could never become trade mark on its own as such words never acquire distinctiveness or a secondary meaning and do not indicate origin or source. It is settled law that words used in everyday language cannot be allowed to be monopolized. The Court further noted that ‘.com’ and ‘YATRA’ are both generic and non-distinctive making ‘YATRA.COM’ also generic, and thus, it could not be protected under common law of passing off. Thus, the defendant cannot be prevented from using the impugned trade marks ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ and ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Ad-interim injunction granted in favour of ITC restraining defendants from using well-known mark ‘BUKHARA’
In an application filed by ITC Ltd. under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the ‘BUKHARA’ trade mark, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from misusing the ‘BUKHARA’ trade mark.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | METRO FOOTWEAR restrained from infringing registered trade mark ‘METRO’; To be decided if ‘METRO’ a well-known mark
In an issue to determine whether the defendants, by using the impugned mark METRO FOOTWEAR, had violated the proprietary rights of the registered owner of the trade mark ‘METRO’, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., while allowing the interim application, held that the registered mark ‘METRO’ had been continuously used since 1955, with its registration in 1972, and therefore, granted temporary injunctions to restrain the defendants from using the impugned mark and passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff’s.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Well-known trade mark ‘GOLD FLAKE’, protected; Use of mark ‘GOLD FLAME’ in sale of cigarettes, restricted
While hearing an interlocutory application filed under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for vacation of an order dated 13-3-2024, wherein the Court had granted ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon the plaintiff, ITC’s registered trade mark ‘GOLD FLAKE’, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the copying of trade dress while dealing with the same type of products amounts to passing off. Accordingly the injunction granted under the order dated 13-3-2024 was confirmed and made absolute by the Court.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Relief granted to Mattel over ‘BARBIE’ trade mark dispute
In an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) filed by Mattel Inc. for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon the trade mark ‘BARBIE’, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that the defendant’s marks were visually, phonetically and conceptually identical to that of the plaintiff’s and amounted to infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from using the ‘BARBIE’ trade mark till further notice.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | TAJ declared a well-known trade mark in respect of hotels and other related services in hospitality industry
In a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing on the plaintiff’s trademarks and copyright, as well as from passing off their services as those of the plaintiff, along with other ancillary relief , Amit Bansal, J., stated that the plaintiff fulfilled all the criteria set out in Section 11(6) read with Section 11(7) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’) for declaring the (‘TAJ marks’) as well-known trade marks in respect of hotels and other related services in the hospitality industry. The Court passed a decree declaring the the TAJ marks as well-known trade marks within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | PETER ENGLAND declared as well-known trade mark
In a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the use of the impugned mark ‘PETER ENGLAND’ by the defendants causing infringement of the plaintiffs’ trade mark, copyright and artistic work on the mark ‘PETER ENGLAND’, , Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that on account of the extensive promotion of its brand undertaken by the plaintiff, and on account of the fact that the plaintiff had numerous stores across the country, it was evident that the customers across India recognize the mark of the plaintiff, i.e., ‘PETER ENGLAND’. Consequently, the decree was passed in the plaintiff’s favour, declaring the plaintiff’s trade mark ‘PETER ENGLAND’, as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘NUTELLA’ declared as a well-known trade mark…
In the present case, the plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent injunction for infringement of its trade mark, passing off, delivery up and damages against the defendant in respect of its trade mark ‘NUTELLA’ and , and even sought their mark ‘NUTELLA’ to be declared as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the 1999 Act’). A Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., declared ‘NUTELLA’/ as a ‘well-known trade mark’ and granted permanent injunction to the plaintiffs, thereby restraining the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, packaging, supplying, distributing, selling, advertising, or dealing in any counterfeit ‘NUTELLA’ products. Further, the Court stated that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs 30,00,000 towards damages of the present proceedings and directed the defendant to pay Rs 2,00,000 as costs to Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | WIPRO declared a well-known trade mark
In a civil commercial suit filed by WIPRO seeking declaration of the mark ‘WIPRO’ as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘TM Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that WIPRO had garnered immense goodwill and reputation both in India and abroad and such deserved to be classified as a well-known trade mark.
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘HERMES’ and 3-D shape of its ‘Birkin’ bag declared as well-known trade marks
While hearing a suit filed for trade mark infringement, passing-off, tarnishing and misappropriation of the plaintiff, Hermes’ Birkin bag, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, declared the three-dimensional shape of the Birkin bag as well as the trade mark ‘HERMES’ as a well-known trade mark under Section 11(6) read with Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act’).
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | No well-known mark status to ‘TikTok’
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.
Read more HERE
CONCLUSION
As digital innovation, AI-generated content, and online enforcement challenges intensify, courts in India continue to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of technology and intellectual property law. These 2025 rulings underline evolving judicial approaches to copyright enforcement, cybercrime, patentability, and personality rights in the digital age.
FAQs
1. What is a dynamic injunction and how does it work?
A dynamic injunction is a flexible court order that allows blocking not only specific infringing websites but also their mirror or proxy versions as they emerge without filing fresh suits each time. It is granted using inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC, often alongside copyright law, to rapidly adapt to online piracy.
2. What is a John Doe injunction and when is it granted?
A John Doe injunction (also known as Ashok Kumar order) is issued against unknown infringers whose identities are not yet established. Courts in India grant it under Order 39 Rules 1—2 of the CPC read with Section 151 CPC and the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to secure evidence and prevent piracy, especially in copyright and trademark cases.
3. Under which law are personality rights protected in India?
Personality rights, covering name, image, voice, likeness, are not codified but are protected via:
-
Article 21: Right to privacy and dignity,
-
Copyright Act, 1957: Protecting performers’ rights under Sections 38A, 38B, 57
-
Trade Marks Act, 1999: Protection granted under passing-off and infringement of registered marks, and common law tort of passing-off under Section 27.
4. Has the Supreme Court issued any rulings on personality rights?
No. Not yet.
5. Can the status of a ‘well-known trademark’ be granted only by courts?
No. Under Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, a ‘well-known trademark’ can be recognized either by a court or by the Registrar under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules 2017.
6. What are the key differences between copyright protection and trademark protection?
-
Copyright: The Copyright Act, 1957 provides protection to original creative works, including literary, musical, and software creations, automatically upon their creation. This protection endures for the lifetime of the author plus an additional sixty years.
-
Trade mark: The Trade Marks Act, 1999 safeguards brand identity elements such as names, logos, and slogans. It provides for mandatory registration and grants protection for a period of ten years, renewable upon expiry.
7. How does the concept of passing-off differ from trademark infringement?
-
Trademark Infringement (Section 29, Trade Marks Act): Statutorily prohibits the unauthorized use of a registered trademark in a manner likely to cause confusion or deception among consumers.
-
Passing Off (Section 27 and Common Law): Provides protection to unregistered marks under the tort of passing off, requiring proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and a likelihood of public confusion.
8. What remedies are available for online copyright infringement in India?
Remedies under the Copyright Act, 1957 include civil remedies like injunctions, damages, seizure and destruction of infringing copies under Section 55, criminal penalties under Section 63 to 65 covering fines and imprisonment, and blocking by intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.
9. Can domain names be protected under trademark law?
Yes. Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a domain name can be protected as a trademark if it functions as a distinctive identifier of goods or services. Indian courts, including in Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet, (2004) 6 SCC 145, have affirmed that domain names used in commerce may qualify for trademark protection and enforcement against infringement or passing off.