{"id":338384,"date":"2025-01-03T15:00:51","date_gmt":"2025-01-03T09:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=338384"},"modified":"2025-01-03T17:12:44","modified_gmt":"2025-01-03T11:42:44","slug":"ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"IPR Roundup 2024: The Most Game-Changing Intellectual Property Rights Cases of the Year"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

MakeMyTrip’s Keyword plea against Google dismissed<\/p>\n

Supreme Court dismisses MakeMyTrip’s plea against Google in Keyword trade mark infringement cas<\/p>\n

In a special leave petition, filed by MakeMyTrip against the Delhi High Court judgment, wherein the Court set aside the interim order passed by a Single Judge that restrained Google from using MakeMyTrip’s registered trade marks as ‘keywords’ on the Google Ads Program, the three-Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. while dismissing the plea, orally remarked that those looking to book their tickets through ‘MakeMyTrip’ would not confuse it with ‘Booking.com’. [MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited v. Google LLC, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 266<\/a>, Order dated 07-03-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Moti Mahal gets trade mark protection against franchisees<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants interim protection to Moti Mahal; temporarily restrains its ex-franchisee from using Moti Mahal’s registered trade marks.<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent and mandatory injunction for infringement and passing off registered trade marks and copyright, a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction and, in case, no ex parte ad interim injunction was granted, the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss. Further, balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendants. [Moti Mahal Delux Management Services (P) Ltd. v. SRMJ Business Promoters (P) Ltd., CS(COMM) 1115 of 2024, decided on 12-12-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

IKEA V. IKEY Trade mark Infringement<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants injunction in favour of IKEA in trademark infringement case against IKEY<\/p>\n

A suit was filed by Inter IKEA Systems BV (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, and delivery up, etc. Mini Pushkarna, J., restrained defendant 1, its partners, their legal heirs, proprietors, employees, servants, agents, representatives and all others in active concert or participation with them, from selling\/ advertising\/ importing\/ exporting or in any other way dealing in goods and providing services under the impugned mark ‘IKEY’, ‘IKEY and\/or any other deceptively similar mark. [Inter IKEA Systems BV v. I Key Home Studio LLP, CS(COMM) 1143\/2024, decided on 18-12-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

MANKIND trumps SEPKIND in trade mark suit<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Mankind Pharma Ltd. to restrain infringement of trade mark<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by Mankind Pharma Ltd. (‘Mankind’) against Sepkind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (‘Sepkind’) seeking permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of their trade mark “MANKIND”, copyright, passing off, unfair trade practice, rendition of accounts, damages, etc., a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J. granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Mankind and barred Sepkind from usage of the impugned trade mark [Mankind Pharma Limited v. Sepkind Pharma Private Limited, CS(COMM) 1091 of 2024, Decided on 06-12-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Lenovo THINKBOOK wins trademark protection<\/p>\n

[THINKBOOK v THINBOOK] Lenovo’s THINK family of marks declared distinctive; Madras HC directs removal of infringing ‘THINBOOK’ Mark. Madras High Court:<\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by leading Laptop manufacturers in the world, Lenovo (Singapore) under Section 57<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a>, (‘the Act’) seeking to rectify, cancel and remove the entry relating to the impugned mark ‘THINBOOK’ in Class 9 made in the name of RPD Workstations , from the Register of Trade marks, Abdul Quddhose, J. concluded that Lenovo is exclusive proprietor of THINK Family of Marks, for which, trade mark registrations have already been obtained both in India as well as in Abroad; that Lenovo has acquired distinctiveness for its THINK Family of Marks by its long and continuous usage; and that the mark ‘THINBOOK’ is deceptively and phonetically similar to that of the Lenovo’s THINK Family of Marks. Thus, while allowing the petition under Section 57 of the Act, the Court, directed the Trade mark Registry to cancel the impugned mark ‘THINBOOK’ in Class 9 from the Register of Trade marks, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. RPD Workstations Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 7336<\/a>, decided on 03-12-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Protection granted to personality rights of cardiac suregon Dr Shetty<\/p>\n

Delhi HC protects personality rights of renowned cardiac surgeon Dr Devi Shetty; temporarily restrains infringement of Narayana Health trade marks<\/p>\n

In a suit filed for seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of personality and publicity rights of Devi Prasad Shetty, a renowned cardiac surgeon (‘Plaintiff 1’), a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of injunction and in case, no ex parte ad interim injunction was granted, the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss. Further, balance of convenience also lies in plaintiff’s favour, and against the defendants. [Devi Prasad Shetty v. Medicine Me, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8565<\/a>, decided on 28-11-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Chrome21 restrained from infirnging ‘HIRECT’ trade mark<\/p>\n

Bombay HC restrains Chrome21 India from infringing Hind Rectifiers’s mark ‘HIRECT’; declares ‘HIRECT’ as a well-known trade mark<\/p>\n

In the present case, plaintiff sought an injunction restraining defendants from infringing plaintiffs registered trade mark ‘HIRECT’ and passing of the impugned mark ‘HIRECT’ as that of plaintiffs registered trade mark. A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., held that till final disposal of the present suit, defendants were restrained from infringing the registered device marks in Classes 9 and 35, by use of the impugned domain name\/website ‘www.hirect.in’ and\/or ‘www.hirect.us’ and\/or any other mark and\/or domain name identical and\/or deceptively similar to the registered marks of plaintiff. [Hind Rectifiers Ltd. v. Chrome21 India Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3648<\/a>, decided on 26-11-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

‘MOCHI’ wins trademark suit against ‘DESIMOCHI’<\/p>\n

Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to Metro Brands Ltd. for mark ‘MOCHI’ against mark ‘DESIMOCHI’; declares ‘MOCHI’ as a well-known mark.<\/p>\n

In the present case, applicant sought an injunction restraining defendants from infringing applicant’s registered trade marks, i.e., the ‘MOCHI’ marks using the impugned mark ‘DESIMOCHI’ and\/or any other marks identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark of applicant. Further, relief was sought to refrain defendants from passing off defendants’ goods\/services as those of applicant’s and for ancillary reliefs. A Saingle Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., granted temporary order and injunction, restraining defendants, from in any manner whatsoever infringing applicant’s registered trade marks. [Metro Brands Ltd. v. Nice Shoes LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3647<\/a>, decided on 18-11-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Reusing embossed Mount Everest bottles is trade mark infringement<\/p>\n

Trade mark Infringement | MP High Court upholds Excise Commissioner’s order prohibiting reuse of embossed Mount Everest beer bottles<\/p>\n

In a petition challenging single judge order which quashed the Excise Commissioner’s order prohibiting all beer and liquor bottling units from reusing embossed bottles, and remitted back the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration, a division bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva* and Pranay Verma, JJ., upheld the Excise Commissioner’s order prohibiting the reuse of bottles with embossed logos but set aside the prohibition on reusing bottles after removing\/scratching the logos, leaving that issue for a different forum. [Mount Everest Breweries Ltd. v. MP Beer Products Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7367<\/a>, Decided on 12-11-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Court safeguards Louis Vuitton from counterfeiters<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court permanently restrains counterfeiters from infringing and passing off Louis Vuitton trade mark<\/p>\n

In a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trade marks of Louis Vuitton (‘LV’) and passing off their goods and services, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J., held that the defendants have infringed the trade mark of Louis Vuitton and decreed the suit accordingly. [Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8010<\/a>, decided on: 12-11-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

John Doe order to protect Dream11 trade mark<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants John Doe order to protect Dream11’s trademark rights against unidentified infringers<\/p>\n

A suit was filed by Sporta Technologies Private Limited (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademarks passing off, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up on account of adoption and use of the marks “DREAM”, the domain name “dream11lotery.com”, and the plaintiffs’ email address “admin@dream11.com” by defendant 1, which amounts to infringement and passing off of the plaintiffs “Dream 11” trademarks. Mini Pushkarna, J., held that the defendants’ use of marks similar to “DREAM,” domain names such as “dream11lotery.com,” and the email address “admin@dream11.com” amounted to an infringement of Sporta Technologies’ registered trademark “Dream 11.”. [Sporta Technologies Private Limited v. John Doe, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7666<\/a>, decided on 04-11-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

“CAMPA” V. “JHAMPA”: Bombay HC intervenes<\/p>\n

Bombay HC grants temporary injunction to mark “CAMPA” in a trade mark infringement case against “JHAMPA”<\/p>\n

A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., held that defendant’s use of the impugned mark ‘JHAMPA’ and labels amount to infringement of applicant’s copyright and registered trade mark ‘CAMPA’ and thus, a case for grant of ad-interim reliefs was made out. Thus, the Court till final disposal of the suit, granted temporary injunction restraining defendant from directly or indirectly, infringing, adopting, using, offering for sale, manufacturing, distributing, selling, advertising, depicting, displaying, during trade and\/or business\/service, applicant’s trade marks including the registered trade mark ‘CAMPA’. [Reliance Retail Ltd. v. Md. Sirajuddin and Beauty Bibi, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3549<\/a>, decided on 24-10-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Blatant piracy and copyright infringement of Zee5 content<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants injunctions to Zee Entertainment for copyright protection; Blocks unauthorized streaming of ‘Zee5’ Content<\/p>\n

A suit was filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (plaintiff) on account of blatant piracy of the plaintiff’s works and infringement of copyright and broadcast reproduction rights of the plaintiff. Mini Pushkarna, J., restrained defendant 1 to 60, their owners, partners, officers others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, from communicating, hosting, streaming, and\/or making available for viewing and downloading, without authorization, on their websites or other platforms, through the internet in any manner whatsoever, the plaintiff’s works so as to infringe the plaintiff’s exclusive rights and broadcast reproduction rights. [Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bollyzone.TV, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7492<\/a>, decided on 24-10-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Sketchers obtains injunction in trade mark infringement suit<\/p>\n

Bombay HC grants interim injunction in favour of Sketchers in trade mark infringement case against Wardrode<\/p>\n

The present suit was filed for infringement of trade mark, copyright in relation to plaintiffs’ trade marks including the trade marks SKECHERS (word per se) and plaintiffs’ Artistic Works , and for passing off. A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., held that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, defendants were restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Court from using or causing to be used plaintiffs’ artistic works or any other artistic work identical or similar to plaintiff’s artistic works in relation to the impugned goods or any goods or in any manner from manufacturing, marketing or offering for sale, advertising or dealing in any goods bearing plaintiffs’ artistic works or any other artistic work identical or similar to plaintiff’s artistic works so as to infringe plaintiff’s copyright subsisting in plaintiff’s artistic works. [Skechers South Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Wardrode, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3483<\/a>, decided on 24-10-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Sporta Tech secures injunction protecting its Dream11 logo<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Sporta Technologies, ruling against ‘Dream11’ logo infringement<\/p>\n

A suit was filed by Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants for alleged unlawful activities of the defendants, specifically the operation of a website that closely mimics the plaintiffs’ established fantasy sports platform, “DREAM11”. Amit Bansal, J., restrained (defendant 1), along with its representatives, from using the marks ‘Dream 11’, its logos, or any deceptively similar variant as a trademark, trade name, domain name, or part of their email addresses, as this amounted to infringement of the plaintiffs’ trademarks and passing off the defendant’s services as those of the plaintiffs.[Sporta Technologies v. Hong Y1 F35, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7310<\/a>, decided on 16-10-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Dharma Production’s “Jigra” allowed to release after a stay on injunction<\/p>\n

Rajasthan High Court grants stay on Injunction against Dharma Production’s movie “Jigra” release over Trade mark Dispute<\/p>\n

In an appeal challenging and seeking a stay on the impugned order dated 08-10-2024, passed by the Commercial Court, Jodhpur, which granted an ad-interim injunction against the release of the movie titled “Jigra” on the grounds of alleged trademark violation, a division bench of Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman, JJ., granted an-interim stay and allowed the release of the movie while reserving the respondent’s right to seek damages if any trademark violation is later proven. [Dharma Production (P) Ltd. v. Bhallaram Choudhary, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2953<\/a>, Decided on 10-10-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

“NOVAKIND” v “MANKIND”<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court upholds injunction against Novakind Bio Sciences for infringing Mankind Pharma’s ‘KIND’ trademark<\/p>\n

An appeal was filed by Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited (appellants), seeking to challenge the order dated 07-08-2023 passed by Single Judge which confirmed the ad-interim injunction granted on 20-04-2021 restraining appellants from using the mark “NOVAKIND” or any similar mark. A division bench of Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma, JJ., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits and upheld the view that the appellants’ use of the mark “NOVAKIND” was likely to cause confusion with the respondent’s registered trademark “MANKIND”. [Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited v. Mankind Pharma Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 212\/2023, decided on 05-10-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

“AMUL”: A well-known mark<\/p>\n

‘Amul is a well-known mark’; Delhi High Court restrains Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt Ltd from using mark similar to ‘AMUL’<\/p>\n

In a suit filed for seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in any product the mark ‘AMUL’ or any other mark, which was identical\/deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade mark ‘AMUL’, Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that the defendants’ adoption of the infringing mark, could not be considered as bonafide or honest. [Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Bio Logic and Psychotropics India (P) Ltd, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6427<\/a>, decided on 10-09-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Hyatt restrained from unauthorized public performance of copyrighted music<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court restrains Hyatt India from unauthorized public performance of copyrighted music at its hotels<\/p>\n

A plaint was filed by Novex Communications Private Limited (plaintiff), a well-established broadcasting and media solutions company, against Hyatt India Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (defendants) who operate and manage several hotels under the brands “Hyatt” and “Andaz” seeking ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using its copyrighted sound recordings without obtaining the necessary authorization. Saurabh Banerjee, J., restrained the defendants. [Novex Communications Private Limited v. Hyatt India Consultancy Pvt Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7076<\/a>, decided on 09-09-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

‘LI’L MONSTER’ loses to Monster Co. in a trade mark suit<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court cancels trade mark ‘LI’L MONSTER’ to protect the Intellectual Property Rights of Monster Energy Co.<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by Monster Energy Company (‘Monster Co.’) under Section 57<\/a> and 125<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘Act’) for the removal\/cancellation of the trade mark ‘LI’L MONSTER’ registered in Class 12 in the name of S.K. Bikes Pvt. Ltd, from the register or rectification of the register, a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J. cancelled the impugned trade mark and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to carry out the necessary rectification in its register. [Monster Energy Company v. S.K. Bikes Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6351<\/a>, Decided on 03-09-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court restrains use of ‘AMMAJI’ trade mark due to confusion with established ‘AMBA’ brand in TMT Bar Market<\/p>\n

‘AMMAJI’ trade mark causes confusion with established ‘AMBA’ Brand<\/p>\n

An appeal was filed by the Amba Shakti Steels Limited (appellants) a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956<\/a> challenging an order dated 18-01-2024 rendered by the Commercial Court, whereby the appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code<\/a> (CPC) was dismissed. A division bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju and Vibhu Bakhru, JJ., allowed the appeal, sets aside the impugned order and restrained from using the trademark or any other marks which are deceptively similar to the appellant’s registered trademarks till the disposal of the suit. [Amba Shakti Steels Limited v. Sequence Ferro Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6179<\/a>, decided on 03-09-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

T-Series restrained from using deceptively similar “Aashiqui ” title<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants interim injunction against T-Series from using “Aashiqui” title in their proposed film<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking to prevent the defendant from releasing any sequels of Aashiqui, in particular, the third part tentatively titled “Aashiqui 3” \/ “Tu Hi Aashiqui” \/ “Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai”, without the plaintiff’s express consent, Sanjeev Narula, J., stated that permitting the defendant to use a deceptively similar title, especially given the existing public anticipation of a third instalment of the Aashiqui Franchise, would infringe the plaintiff’s trade mark rights by misleading consumers and diluting the brand identity of the Aashiqui Franchise. [Vishesh Films (P) Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6117<\/a>, decided on 02-09-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court imposes Rs. 5 lakhs costs on a website for using copyrighted photographs\/images of Louis Vuitton without authorization<\/p>\n

Unauthorized use of Louis Vuitton images: Rs 5 lakh cost imposed<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by the petitioner, Louis Vuitton Malletier, for seeking relief of permanent injunction, damages and other appropriate reliefs against the defendants, Mini Pushkarna, J., noted that the only issue in the present case, before the Court, was related to the photographs and images, that were used by the defendants, copyright of which, vested with the plaintiff. Thus, the Court injuncted the defendants from using the photographs, images and promotional material, of which, copyright vested with the plaintiff.[Louis Vuitton Malletier v. www.haute24.com, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5817<\/a>, decided on 21-08-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Musical works at wedding not exempted from Copyright Act<\/p>\n

Bombay HC quashes circular exempting performance of musical works at wedding from copyright infringement under Copyright Act 1957<\/p>\n

Petitioner, Phonographic Performance Limited filed the present petition under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned Circular dated 30-01-2024 issued by Respondent 1, which stated that the performance of musical works etc., at religious ceremonies, including weddings did not amount to violation of the Copyright Act, 1957<\/a> (‘the Act’). The Division Bench of M.S. Karnik* and Valmiki Menezes, JJ., opined that respondents entered into the realm of interpretation of Section 52(1)(za) which was the domain of the competent Court to determine in the facts and circumstances of each case.[Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. State of Goa, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2713<\/a>, decided on 13-08-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Associate Managers under Trade Marks Act cannot pass quasi-judicial orders<\/p>\n

‘Associate Managers appointed u\/S. 3(2) of Trade Marks Act are not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders’; Calcutta HC<\/p>\n

In a batch of three appeals filed under Section 91<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘Act’) against orders dated 16-09-2023 and 06-10-2023 passed by the Associate Managers of Trade Marks Registry, a Single Judge Bench of Krishna Rao, J. quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Associate Managers and held that since they were appointed under Section 3(2), hence, were not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders. [Visa International Ltd. v. Visa International Service Association, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 7238<\/a>, Decided on 02-08-2024<\/span>]. Read More..<\/a><\/p>\n

‘ADIDAS’ secures injunction protecting its trade mark<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Adidas AG in suit filed for infringement of ‘ADIDAS’ trade mark<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by Adidas AG (‘Adidas’) to secure their rights against the use of an identical mark by the defendants for various classes of goods, including textiles, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J. granted permanent injunction to Adidas and restrained the defendants from manufacturing, trading, selling, marketing, offering for sale or dealing in any way in textile piece goods under the ‘Adidas’ marks or any other marks deceptively similar to Adidas’ marks. [Adidas AG v. Keshav H Tulsiani, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4940<\/a>, Decided on 19-07-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Re-release of Kamal Hassan starrer ‘GUNAA’ infringes copyright<\/p>\n

Madras High Court stops re-release of Kamal Hassan starrer movie ‘GUNAA’ due to copyright infringement claims<\/p>\n

In an Original Application filed to grant an order of ad-interim injunction restraining Pyramid Audio India Pvt Ltd. (‘Pyramid Audio’), their men, agents, servants or persons acting on their behalf, from in any manner exhibiting and exploiting the copyrights of the film ‘GUNAA’ starring Kamal Hassan and others, music by Ilaiyaraja and directed by Santhana Bharathi, pending disposal of the suit , P. Velmurugan, J. has granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the applicant and directed him to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3(a)<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a>. [Ghanshyam Hemdev v. Pyramid Audio India Pvt Ltd, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 3211<\/a>, decided on 10-07-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Jindal India Ltd. obtains interim injunction for infringement of “JINDAL” marks<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in favour of Jindal India Limited for infringement of its “JINDAL” marks<\/p>\n

A suit was filed by Jindal India Limited (plaintiff) for infringement of trademark\/copyright in the marks “JINDAL”, “” and “JINDAL with the device of map of India” for goods of the plaintiff, passing off goods, delivery upon, rendition of accounts of profits, along with further damages. [Jindal India Limited v. Rawalwasiya Steel Plant, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4792<\/a>, decided on 09-07-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Tesla v. Tesla<\/p>\n

[Tesla v. Tesla] Delhi High Court refers trade mark dispute between Tesla Inc and Tesla Power India to mediation<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc. (‘Tesla’) against Tesla Power India Private Limited (‘defendants’) seeking permanent and mandatory injunction and damages for infringement of trade marks, passing off and unfair trade competition under Section 134(1)<\/a> read with Sections 27<\/a> and 29<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a>, Mini Pushkarna, J., referred the matter to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. [Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4594<\/a>, decided on 04-07-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Code of Conduct for patent and trademark agents: Delhi HC leads the way<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court directs formation of Code of Conduct to regulate Patent and Trade Mark agents; sets aside abandonment order of patent application<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the abandonment of its patent application titled ‘Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching’ and to restore the said application, a Single Judge Bench of Pratibha M. Singh, J. held that this was a clear case of misconduct and intentional negligence by the patent agent and directed the formation of a Code of Conduct for trade mark and patent agents. [Saurav Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4585<\/a>, Decided on 04-07-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Saregama India wins Rs. 10 lakhs for infringement of ‘Udi Jab Jab Zulfein’<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court directs Emami Ltd. to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs for infringing Saregama India’s copyright on song ‘Udi Jab Jab Zulfein’<\/p>\n

In an application filed by Saregama India Ltd. (‘Saregama’) against Emami Ltd. (‘Emami’) under Order 39 Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> read with Section 151<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> (‘CPC’) for the grant of interim injunction, a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J. directed Emami to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs with the Registry of the Court within two weeks and stated that this was only an interim arrangement and that the Court would consider upon further hearing whether the amount to be deposited should be varied. [Saregama India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4596<\/a>, Order dated 03-07-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Settlement approved between Dabur and Dhruv Rathee to remove ‘Real’ juices references<\/p>\n

Calcutta High Court approves settlement between Dabur and Dhruv Rathee to remove all references to ‘Real’ juices in YouTube video<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by Dabur India Limited (‘Dabur’) to seek protection of its intellectual property rights against a YouTube video by Dhruv Rathee (Defendant) wherein references were made to ‘Real’, a product of Dabur, a Single Judge Bench of Krishna Rao, J., disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement agreed between both parties wherein it was agreed to remove all references of or use of ‘Real’ trade marks, copyright content, labels, packaging, and advertisements from the impugned video. [Dabur India Ltd. v. Dhruv Rathee, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6114<\/a>, Order dated 18-06-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Ex-parte injunction against ATYATI discontinued<\/p>\n

Bombay HC discontinues ex-parte injunction granted to ATYATI against alleged device mark infringement by COGNIZANT<\/p>\n

In an interim application filed by ATYATI Technologies (the plaintiff) , against COGNIZANT Technologies (the defendants) for infringing their device mark, for which the Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff on the usage of the impugned mark by the defendants, the the single-Judge Bench of Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J.* held that the injunction imposed earlier be discontinued due to suppression of material facts by the plaintiff. The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to adhere to the duties applicable on the party applying for an ex-parte ad interim relief, such as the disclosure of full material facts, some of which were suppressed by the plaintiff. [ATYATI Technologies (P) Ltd. v. COGNIZANT Technologies Solutions US Corp., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1680<\/a>, decided on 13-06-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Disney+Hotstar’s challenge to “Yakshini” video adaptation dismissed<\/p>\n

‘No interim injunction for appeal filed at eleventh hour’; Delhi High Court dismisses application challenging “Yakshini” video adaptation by Disney+Hotstar<\/p>\n

In an application filed for seeking temporary injunction for restraining defendant 1 and anybody on their behalf from commercializing the video adaptation in the television series of “Yakshini” on their website or on any other audio, video adaptation based substantially similar to the plaintiff’s work “Yakshini” on any other third-party media websites, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that the similarity of name cannot be the sole criteria, especially as it was a mythological character on which admittedly various works, movies and books are already available. Prima facie, there was nothing to reflect as copyright violation of expression of idea as asserted by the plaintiff. [Pocket FM Pvt. Ltd. v. Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4382<\/a>, decided on: 13-06-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Probability of confusion between “ZITA-MET” and “XIGAMET”<\/p>\n

‘Ordinary common man will be confused’; Bombay HC grants ad-interim injunction to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals for mark “ZITA-MET” against Gleck Pharma’s mark “XIGAMET”<\/p>\n

Firdosh Pooniwalla, J., held that the ad-interim injunction sought by plaintiff, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., in respect of defendants’, Gleck Pharma (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. mark was required to be granted as the word mark “XIGAMET” of defendant was phonetically and structurally similar to the word mark “ZITA-MET” of plaintiff and the two marks were used on medicinal products and there could be no doubt that there was a probability of confusion in respect of both these marks. [Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Gleck Pharma (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1660<\/a>, decided on 13-06-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Jackie Shroff secures protection to his publicity and personality rights<\/p>\n

Delhi HC restrains entities from infringing Jackie Shroff’s publicity and personality rights including his name, voice and image for commercial gains<\/p>\n

In a civil suit filed by famous actor Jackie Shroff (‘plaintiff’), seeking protection of his publicity\/personality rights against unauthorized misuse, the Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula*, J., held that the balance of convenience lied in favour of plaintiff and had established a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte injunction. Thus, the Court restrained several defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s personality\/publicity rights and held that Order XXXIX Rule 3<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> be complied with within one week from 15-05-2024. [Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664<\/a>, Decided on: 15-05-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Power of Court to pass trade mark orders in execution petition<\/p>\n

Can the Court pass orders for trademark infringement in an execution petition? Delhi HC answers<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the Glaxo Group (‘Glaxo’) (decree holders) for execution of a decree passed in a suit for infringement of trademark by the defendant, Jasmeet Singh, J, while restraining defendants from infringing upon Glaxo’s trade mark, held that the Court in an execution petition could arrive at a finding that the products of the judgment-debtors were similar and infringing the trademark of the decree-holders, in order to execute the decree of injunction, and can pass orders subsequently, so as to give effect to the decree. [Glaxo Group Limited v. Rajiv Mukul, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4447<\/a>, decided on 08.05.2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Donito’s loses to Domino’s in infringement suit<\/p>\n

[Domino’s v. Donito’s] Delhi HC grants interim injunction to Dominos IP Holder for its mark Domino’s in relation to pizzas and burgers<\/p>\n

The Court was satisfied that plaintiff 1 — Domino’s IP Holder LLC had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction, as they were likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction was not granted. [Dominos IP Holder LLC v. MG Foods, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4381<\/a>, order dated: 31-05-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

‘Aap Ki Adalat’ trumps over ‘Baap Ki Adalat’<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court restrains ‘Baap Ki Adalat’ for infringing Rajat Sharma’s popular show ‘Aap Ki Adalat’ marks<\/p>\n

An application was filed by Independent News Service Private Limited (plaintiff), a company incorporated in 1997, and its Chairman and Editor-in-Chief, Shri Rajat Sharma, seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants and all those acting for and, on their behalf from using the mark\/logo or ‘Baap Ki Adalat’ or any other trademark\/logo deceptively like the trademark\/logo of the plaintiff ‘Aap Ki Adalat‘. Anish Dayal, J., restrained the defendants from using\/dealing in any manner with the impugned trademark\/logo and ‘Baap ki Adalat or any other trademark\/logo deceptively similar to the trademark\/logo of the plaintiff ‘Aap Ki Adalat‘. [Independent News Service Private Limited v. Ravindra Kumar Chaudhary, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4380<\/a>, decided on 30-05-2024<\/span>]. Read More..<\/a><\/p>\n

Restraint on printing and selling counterfeit copies of EBC books<\/p>\n

Amazon, Flipkart & Snapdeal directed to stop selling counterfeit copies of EBC’s books; Delhi HC restrains parties from printing & selling counterfeit copies of EBC books<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by Eastern Book Company (‘EBC’), seeking urgent interim relief against sale of counterfeit copies of its books, and ex-parte appointment of Local Commissioners, Sanjeev Narula, J. restrained the defendants from manufacturing, publishing, offering for sale, advertising, using, exporting, printing, directly or indirectly selling or dealing in products, including, but not limited to books under the trade marks ‘EBC’ and ‘Eastern Book Company’. [EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. v. Parents Responsibility, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5675<\/a>, decided on: 24-05-2024<\/span>]. Read More..<\/a><\/p>\n

Foreign country registration not a ground for cancellation of design<\/p>\n

[Patent and Design] Calcutta High Court| Registration in foreign country per se not a ground for cancellation of design registered in India<\/p>\n

An appeal was filed under Section 19(2)<\/a> of the Designs Act, 2000<\/a> read with the relevant Rules framed thereunder, directed against an order of cancellation dated 12-04-2023 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs cancelling the registered design of 2 the appellant bearing no.233559 for an Air Cooler with effect from 27-12-2010. Ravi Krishan Kapur, J., sets aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the statutory authorities for fresh adjudication, directing them to consider all relevant evidence and legal arguments in accordance with the law. [Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 5391<\/a>, decided on 24-05-2024<\/span>]. Read More..<\/a><\/p>\n

Patent application for Bifdobacterium longum remanded due to insufficeint novelty<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court remands patent application for Bifidobacterium longum for fresh consideration, due to insufficient examination of Novelty<\/p>\n

An appeal was filed challenging refusal of the Indian Patent Application (‘subject patent application’) which involves formulation of a probiotic bacterium, specifically the strain of Bifidobacterium longum by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (‘Controller’) under Section 15<\/a> of the Patent Act, 1970<\/a> by the impugned order dated 27-11-2018. Sanjeev Narula, J., sets aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the respondents for a fresh consideration and restored the patent application number. [Alimentary Health Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3473<\/a>, decided on 14-05-2024<\/span>]. Read More..<\/a><\/p>\n

Section 117-A of Patents Act 1970<\/p>\n

No Appeal lies u\/s 117-A of Patents Act 1970 against an Order passed u\/s 21(1): Bombay HC reiterates<\/p>\n

The present petition is an appeal under the provisions of Section 117-A<\/a> of the Patents Act, 1970<\/a> (‘the Patents Act’) impugning the Order dated 16-8-2021 passed by the respondent. A Single Judge Bench of Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J., held that since the petitioners have not complied with the requirements of the First Examination Report (‘FER’) within the time prescribed, the provisions of Section 21(1) would be applicable and therefore, the impugned Order has been correctly passed under the provisions of Section 21(1) and not under Section 15. The Court therefore dismissed the petition as being non-maintainable under the provisions of Section 117-A of the Patents Act. [Sonalkumar Sureshrao Salunkhe v. Assistant Controller of Patents, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1260<\/a>, decided on 6-5-2024<\/span>].<\/p>\n

Injunction refused against Hrithik Roshan’s XS Brands Consultancy<\/p>\n

[SPARX v HRX] Delhi High Court refuses injunction against Hrithik Roshan’s XS Brands Consultancy for using mark ‘X’<\/p>\n

A suit was filed by Relaxo Footwears Limited (plaintiff), seeking permanent injunction restraining the ‘HRX’\/‘HRX BY HRITHIK ROSHAN’ (defendants) and all those acting for\/on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising, dealing with, in any manner footwear, apparel, accessories, and other products using the mark (‘impugned mark’ or ‘defendants’ X mark’) or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark (‘plaintiff’s X mark’). [Relaxo Footwers Limited v. XS Brands Consultancy Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3434<\/a>, decided on 03-05-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

VIAGRA v. VIGOURA: Pfizer obtains permanent injunction<\/p>\n

[VIAGRA v. VIGOURA] ‘Confusion between medicinal products pose serious risks to public health’; Delhi HC grants permanent injunction in favour of Pfizer Products<\/p>\n

Pfizer Products Inc-Plaintiff filed the present suit to seek protection of their trade marks rights in ‘VIAGRA’, a well-recognized erectile dysfunction allopathic drug, by seeking permanent injunction to prevent defendants from marketing their homeopathic medicine under a confusingly similar trade mark ‘VIGOURA’, used allegedly for curing sexual disorders. Sanjeev Narula, J.*, opined that the both the trade marks exhibited a high degree of phonetic similarity. [Pfizer Products Inc. v. Renovision Exports (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3140<\/a>, decided on 01-05-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Amaris Flagship disallowed from infringing Serpenti Necklace design<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in favour of Bulgari S.P.A for its design infringement of Serpenti Necklace by Amaris Flagship<\/p>\n

A suit was filed by Bulgari SPA (plaintiff) seeking to restrain the defendants from manufacturing infringing goods alleging trademark infringement and passing off. Sanjeev Narula, J. granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs stating that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in their favour and they will suffer an irreparable loss and balance of convenience also lies in their favour [Bulgari S.P.A v. Prerna Rajpal Trading, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3339<\/a>, decided on 29-04-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Burger Singh procures injunction against franchisee<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court restrains franchisor to sell poor quality food items under the name of BURGER SINGH after termination of Franchise Agreement<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by Tipping Mr. Pink Private Limited (petitioner) seeking injunction to restrain the Savera Eats (respondents) from using the infringing mark “BURGER SINGH” and violating the petitioner’s trademark rights. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J., * restrained respondents from using the petitioner’s registered trademark “BURGER SINGH” or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the petitioner’s mark and appointed a Local Commissioner with a power to preserve any infringing material which can be destroyed by the respondent. [Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited v. Savera Eats, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3603<\/a>, order dated 22-04-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

‘Fair and Handsome’ v. ‘Glow and Handsome’<\/p>\n

‘Fair and Handsome’ v. ‘Glow and Handsome’; Calcutta HC rules in favour of Emami in Passing Off Dispute Against Hindustan Unilever<\/p>\n

In a suit for infringement and passing off under Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘TM Act’), filed by Emami Limited (‘Emami’), a well-established company in the men’s skincare industry, against Hindustan Unilever Limited (‘Hindustan Unilever’), seeking relief against Hindustan Unilever for their use of the mark “Glow and Handsome,” claiming it bore striking resemblance to Emami’s renowned brand “Fair and Handsome.” Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. granted relief to Emami for passing off, despite Emami failing to prove infringement, and noted the similarity between the marks “Fair and Handsome” and “Glow and Handsome,” [Emami Limited v. Hindustan Unilever Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 3579<\/a>, Judgment dated 9-04-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Copyright Infringement case<\/p>\n

‘Right gets extinguished only if it is relinquished by process known to law’; Delhi HC rules in favour of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust in Copyright Infringement case<\/p>\n

In an application filed under Order 13-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (‘CPC’) seeking summary judgment in favour of plaintiff and against defendant, Anish Dayal, J.*, referred to Section 21<\/a> of the Copyright Act, 1957<\/a> (‘the Act’) and opined that the provision provides for a prescribed form to be utilized for relinquishment of a copyright and that right would extinguish by the renunciate, only if the person transferred or relinquished the right by a process known to law, and not otherwise. [Bhaktivedanta Book Trust India v. www.friendwithbooks.co., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2805<\/a>, decided on 05-04-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Unauthorized use of ‘RAZORPAY’<\/p>\n

[Financial Scam] Delhi High Court restrains unauthorized use of mark ‘RAZORPAY’; directs blocking of Facebook\/WhatsApp\/Telegram Accounts<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant 1 was perpetrating fraud on the public by creating a false association with them, resulting in grave financial losses to the public. Sanjeev Narula, J., restrained Defendant 1, and all persons acting on their behalf, from using plaintiffs’ trade marks or logos, including, ‘RAZORPAY’, or and\/or any deceptive variants thereof which were identical and\/or similar to plaintiffs’ “Razor” trade marks in any manner, thereby amounting to infringement or passing off of plaintiffs’ trade marks. [Razorpay Software (P) Ltd. v. John Doe, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2496<\/a>, Order dated 2-4-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

‘HALDIRAM’, a well-known mark in food items and eateries<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court declares ‘HALDIRAM’ as “well-known mark” in respect of food items, restaurants, eateries<\/p>\n

Plaintiff, Haldiram India (P) Ltd. filed the present suit seeking protection of its mark ‘HALDIRAM’, and a declaration that the said mark, along with its variations such as ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ was ‘well-known’ in terms of Section 2(1)(zg)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘the Act’). Further, plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction, restraining defendants from selling products under the impugned mark ‘HALDIRAM’\/‘HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA’ or any other marks that were deceptively similar to plaintiff’s mark ‘HALDIRAM’. [Haldiram India (P) Ltd. v. Berachah Sales Corpn., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2265<\/a>, decided on 2-4-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Rogue websites disallowed from streaming IPL Events<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court passes dynamic injunction in favour of Viacom 18, restraining rogue websites from illegally streaming IPL Events<\/p>\n

The subject matter of the present suit relates to the Indian Premier League (‘IPL’), which was a Twenty20 (‘T20’) cricket franchise league in India, owned and operated by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (‘BCCI’). The TATA IPL 2024 was scheduled to run from 22-3-2024 till the end of May 2024 and the matches were being held in India and included a total of 74 T20 matches (‘IPL Events’). [Viacom 18 Media (P) Ltd. v. John Doe, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2071<\/a>, Order dated 22-3-2024<\/span>]. Read More..<\/a><\/p>\n

Google gets injunction against use of GOOCLE, GOOGLE, GIPAY, GEOGLE marks<\/p>\n

[Typo-squatting] Delhi HC restrains P. Rajesh Ram from using GOOCLE, GOOGLE, GIPAY, GEOGLE marks in a trade mark infringement plea by Google LLC<\/p>\n

The present suit relates to plaintiff’s rights in the trade marks GOOGLE, GOOGLE PAY, GPAY, and . Sanjeev Narula, J., restrained Defendants 1 to 5, or anybody acting on their behalf, from rendering, selling, offering for sale, advertising, broadcasting, or directly or indirectly dealing with any services under the marks ‘GOOGLE’, ‘GEOGLE’, ‘GOOCLE’, ‘GIPAY’,or any other trade mark in any language, representation or form, which was identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s ‘Google’ and ‘GPay’ trade marks, and which amounted to infringement or passing off of plaintiff’s ‘Google’ and ‘GPay’ trade marks. [Google LLC v. P. Rajesh Ram, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1954<\/a>, Order dated 12-3-2024<\/span>]. Read More..<\/a><\/p>\n

Cyberlocker websites directed to take down copyrighted content of Warner Bros, Netflix, Universal City Studios<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court directs rogue cyberlocker websites to take down listings of copyrighted content of Warner Bros, Netflix, Universal City Studios<\/p>\n

The present application was filed by plaintiffs seeking decree of permanent injunction against Defendants 1 to 3, its operators, owners, partners, and all others acting for\/on their behalf, in any manner facilitating uploading, hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public through their platforms\/websites any cinematographic work\/content\/programme in relation to which plaintiffs own the copyright and other attendant reliefs. [Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Doodstream.com, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1955<\/a>, Order dated 18-3-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Use of “Dish” deemed non-infringing trade mark<\/p>\n

Use of “Dish” deemed non-infringing trademark; Delhi High Court rejects interim injunction against Prasar Bharti’s DD Free Dish<\/p>\n

An intra court appeal was filed by Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India)) (appellants) also known as Doordarshan, the public broadcaster of the country, providing free Radio and Television services to all subscribers including Direct to Home (hereafter ‘DTH’) services since the year 2004 impugning an order dated 16-07-2019 passed by the Single Judge whereby the respondent’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> was allowed and the appellant was restrained from adopting the trademark ‘DD Free Dish’ or any other mark incorporating the mark ‘Dish’, pending disposal of the suit. [Prasar Bharti v. Dish TV India Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1694<\/a>, decided on 06-03-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Obligation upon e-commerce platforms to provide details of look-alike products<\/p>\n

Look-alike products undermine integrity of fair trade; Obligation upon e-commerce platforms to ensure that sellers’ complete details are available: Delhi HC<\/p>\n

The present suit was filed by plaintiff, Abhi Traders for copyright infringement and passing off, and other reliefs including damages against defendants who were advertising, publishing, and offering for sale, the garments, which were a complete copy of plaintiff’s garments and were also misusing the photographs and images in which plaintiff owned rights. [Abhi Traders v. Fashnear Technolgoies (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1604<\/a>, Order dated 29-2-2024<\/span>]. Read More..<\/a><\/p>\n

Injunction against Geetanjali Salon in copyright infringement case<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court grants ex parte interim injunction against Geetanjali Salon in copyright infringement case<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff, PPL India, established a compelling case of copyright infringement against Geetanjali Salon, the defendants, with a clear imbalance of convenience favoring the plaintiff’s protection of intellectual property, an interim injunction is granted to halt the defendants’ unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. [Phonographic Performance Limited v. Geetanjali Salon Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1171<\/a>, decided on 16-02-2024<\/span>]. Read more..<\/a><\/p>\n

Oracle wins tarde mark suit over protection of ‘JAVA’ mark<\/p>\n

‘Does not align with Third Party Usage Guidelines for Oracle Trade Marks’; Delhi HC restrains Sonoo Jaiswal from using Oracle’s mark ‘JAVA’ in domain name ‘javatpoint’<\/p>\n

Plaintiff was aggrieved by the adoption of the trade mark (‘impugned mark’) by defendants, which they were using in relation to a variety of software services, including training and manuals on JAVA programming language. Sanjeev Narula, J., granted an injunction in plaintiff’s favour by directing defendants and\/or any person on their behalf, to not use plaintiff’s trade mark ‘JAVA’ as part of their domain name ‘javatpoint.com’, and in relation to the services they were offering. The Court held that if defendants were to use the mark ‘JAVA’ then such use must be done strictly in terms of the ‘Third Party Usage Guidelines for Oracle Trade Marks’, which were stated on plaintiff’s website. [Oracle America Inc. v. Sonoo Jaiswal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1386<\/a>, Order dated 12-02-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Lotus Herbals’ plea against Deepika Padukone’s brand ‘Lotus Splash’ dismissed<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court dismisses plea to grant injunction to Lotus Herbals for mark ‘Lotus’ against Deepika Padukone’s brand ‘Lotus Splash’<\/p>\n

C. Hari Shankar, J.*, noted that in each of the packs of defendants’ product, the mark ‘82°E’ figured at the lower edge of the bottle, which indicated that the trade mark of defendants was ‘82°E’ and not ‘Lotus Splash’. The Court opined that there was no prima facie case of passing off as the only common feature between plaintiffs and defendants’ mark was the word ‘lotus’. [Lotus Herbals (P) Ltd. v. DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 498<\/a>, decided on 25-01-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Power of Copyright Societies to grant license under Copyright Act<\/p>\n

Can Copyright Societies grant license under Section 30 of Copyright Act? Bombay High Court explains<\/p>\n

In a bunch of suits by Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. (‘Novex’) and Phonographic Performance Ltd. (‘PPL’) seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from publicly performing or communicating the sound recordings of songs assigned and authorized to PPL and Novex in the absence of any licenses, R.I. Chagla, J. held that Copyright Societies being ‘owners’ could grant any interest in the copyright by license under Section 30<\/a> of the Copyright Act, 1957<\/a> (‘1957 Act’). [Novex Communications (P) Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotesl Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 252<\/a>, decided on 24-01-2024<\/span>]. Read More..<\/a><\/p>\n

Relief to Pidilite Industries Ltd over “LW” and ”LW+” marks<\/p>\n

Bombay HC grants interim relief to Pidilite Industries Ltd.; restrains Dubond Products India Pvt. Ltd. from using marks “LW” and “LW+”<\/p>\n

The plaintiff sought an order of injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its “LW” and “LW+” registered trade marks and for which necessary relief had been sought viz. for injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, copyright, and passing off of the plaintiff’s registered trade marks by the impugned marks of the defendant viz. LW with or without the marks HYDROBUILD or HYDROTITE and\/or Power. R.I. Chagla, J., opined that the defendant’s use of the impugned mark “LW” with “HYDROBUILD POWER” and\/or “HYDROBUILD” incorporated therein, would prima facie amount to an infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “LW” as the impugned marks had encompassed the whole of the plaintiff’s “LW” mark. [Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Dubond Products India Pvt. Ltd., Interim Application (L) No. 11255 of 2021, Order dated 21-01-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Hero Investcorp wins infringement case over ‘HERO’ mark<\/p>\n

‘Not a case of innocent adoption’; Delhi High Court rules in favour of Hero Investcorp for mark ‘HERO’ in relation to engine oil<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs, owners of the trade mark ‘HERO’, ‘’, ‘\/’, filed the present suit seeking various remedies including permanent injunction restraining defendants from selling counterfeit ‘Hero genuine 4t plus motorcycle engine oil’, which bear plaintiffs’ marks and identical packaging. Sanjeev Narula, J.*, opined that defendants had infringed plaintiffs’ rights by adopting and using an identical mark with respect to identical goods. [Hero Invest Corp (P) Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1443<\/a>, decided on 20-2-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Application for removal of mark of ‘BAOJI’ for non use dismissed<\/p>\n

‘Mark’s removal for non-use requires clear, unequivocal evidence of abandonment’; Delhi High Court dismisses application for removal of mark ‘BAOJI’<\/p>\n

In a case wherein a rectification application was filed by petitioner, Rong Thai International Group Co. Ltd. invoking Section 47(1)(b)<\/a> of Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘the Act’) to seek cancellation of the mark ‘BAOJI’, registered in Class 25 in favour of Respondent 1, Ena Footwear Pvt. Ltd. on the ground of non-use, Sanjeev Narula, J.*, dismissed the petition and held that a mark’s removal for non-use required clear, unequivocal evidence of abandonment, which was not present in the case. [Rong Thai International Group Co. Ltd. v. Ena Footwear (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 66<\/a>, decided on: 05-01-2024<\/span>]. Read More…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Discover the year’s most impactful IPR cases, including landmark decisions on copyright infringements, trademark conflicts, patent disputes, and more, shaping the future of intellectual property law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":338386,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[45673,70549],"tags":[77163,77159,77160,9271,8341,77162,72730,77161,3554,77158,3221],"class_list":["post-338384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-columns-for-roundup","category-topic-wise-roundup","tag-2024-intellectual-property","tag-2024-ipr-cases","tag-case-law-review","tag-copyright","tag-intellectual-property-rights","tag-ipr-litigation","tag-ipr-roundup","tag-legal-trends","tag-patent","tag-top-ipr-cases","tag-Trademark"],"yoast_head":"\nIPR Roundup: A quick review of the top intellectual property rights cases from 2024 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Explore the most significant Intellectual Property Rights cases from 2024, with comprehensive roundup of landmark decisions, legal trends, and evolving interpretations of trademark, patent, and copyright law\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"IPR Roundup 2024: The Most Game-Changing Intellectual Property Rights Cases of the Year\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Explore the most significant Intellectual Property Rights cases from 2024, with comprehensive roundup of landmark decisions, legal trends, and evolving interpretations of trademark, patent, and copyright law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-01-03T09:30:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-01-03T11:42:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"IPR Roundup 2024: The Most Game-Changing Intellectual Property Rights Cases of the Year\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/\",\"name\":\"IPR Roundup: A quick review of the top intellectual property rights cases from 2024 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-03T09:30:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-03T11:42:44+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Explore the most significant Intellectual Property Rights cases from 2024, with comprehensive roundup of landmark decisions, legal trends, and evolving interpretations of trademark, patent, and copyright law\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"2024 IPR cases\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"IPR Roundup 2024: The Most Game-Changing Intellectual Property Rights Cases of the Year\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"IPR Roundup: A quick review of the top intellectual property rights cases from 2024 | SCC Times","description":"Explore the most significant Intellectual Property Rights cases from 2024, with comprehensive roundup of landmark decisions, legal trends, and evolving interpretations of trademark, patent, and copyright law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"IPR Roundup 2024: The Most Game-Changing Intellectual Property Rights Cases of the Year","og_description":"Explore the most significant Intellectual Property Rights cases from 2024, with comprehensive roundup of landmark decisions, legal trends, and evolving interpretations of trademark, patent, and copyright law","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-01-03T09:30:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-01-03T11:42:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"IPR Roundup 2024: The Most Game-Changing Intellectual Property Rights Cases of the Year","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/","name":"IPR Roundup: A quick review of the top intellectual property rights cases from 2024 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp","datePublished":"2025-01-03T09:30:51+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-03T11:42:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Explore the most significant Intellectual Property Rights cases from 2024, with comprehensive roundup of landmark decisions, legal trends, and evolving interpretations of trademark, patent, and copyright law","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"2024 IPR cases"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/ipr-roundup-top-intellectual-property-rights-cases-2024\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"IPR Roundup 2024: The Most Game-Changing Intellectual Property Rights Cases of the Year"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/2024-IPR-cases.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":316651,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/11\/supreme-court-dismisses-plea-by-makemytrip-google-keyword-trade-mark-infringement\/","url_meta":{"origin":338384,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court dismisses MakeMyTrip’s plea against Google in Keyword trade mark infringement case","author":"Apoorva","date":"March 11, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA risk of trade mark infringement occurs when a registered trade mark is used as a keyword by a third party to link its website to promote its goods and services, which creates confusion in the minds of the consumers about the source of the product.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"MakeMyTrip","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/MakeMyTrip.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/MakeMyTrip.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/MakeMyTrip.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/MakeMyTrip.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":377829,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/10\/ipr-february-2026-important-high-court-judgments-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":338384,"position":1},"title":"Intellectual Property Rights February 2026 Roundup: Key High Court Judgments on Personality Rights, Copyright, Trade Mark, and More","author":"Prarthana Gupta","date":"March 10, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick legal roundup to cover important stories of February 2026 on Intellectual Property Rights from all High Courts; covering key updates on Personality Rights, Trade mark and Copyright infringement.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"IPR February 2026","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/blog-2026-03-10T095818.075.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/blog-2026-03-10T095818.075.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/blog-2026-03-10T095818.075.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/blog-2026-03-10T095818.075.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250931,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/07\/delhi-high-court-establishes-intellectual-property-division-to-deal-with-intellectual-property-cases\/","url_meta":{"origin":338384,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court establishes Intellectual Property Division to deal with Intellectual Property Cases","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 7, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court has established Intellectual Property Division to deal with Intellectual Property Cases and would be governed by the IPD Delhi High Court Rules which are in the process of being framed. Consequent upon promulgation of The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, the Chief\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":355782,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/intellectual-property-rights-july-2025-roundup-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":338384,"position":3},"title":"IPR July 2025: A quick recap of the Months\u2019 top Intellectual Property Rights cases","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"August 6, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Covering all the important IPR cases across various High Courts and the Supreme Court, this roundup provides a quick summary of cases, links to other roundups, latest legal updates in criminal law and a few top stories of the month.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Intellectual Property Rights July 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-July-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-July-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-July-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-July-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":46561,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/10\/gnlu-centre-for-intellectual-property-rights-ipr-essay-competition\/","url_meta":{"origin":338384,"position":4},"title":"GNLU Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Essay Competition","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 10, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Vardaan Bajaj","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/trophies2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/trophies2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/trophies2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/trophies2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/trophies2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":368662,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/04\/legal-roundup-ipr-november-2025-copyright-trademark-personality-rights-patent-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":338384,"position":5},"title":"Intellectual Property Rights November 2025: Key IPR rulings of the Month","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"December 4, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Compiling key judgments from High Courts across India, this roundup presents November\u2019s significant developments in copyright, trade mark, trade dress, and personality rights, reflecting evolving trends in IP protection and enforcement.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Intellectual Property Rights November 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=338384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338384\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/338386"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=338384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=338384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=338384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}