{"id":352720,"date":"2025-07-08T09:00:32","date_gmt":"2025-07-08T03:30:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=352720"},"modified":"2025-07-07T19:11:31","modified_gmt":"2025-07-07T13:41:31","slug":"legal-roundup-intellectual-property-right-roundup-june-2025-copyright-infringement-trade-mark-infringement-scc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/08\/legal-roundup-intellectual-property-right-roundup-june-2025-copyright-infringement-trade-mark-infringement-scc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ROUNDUP: A quick recap of the latest Intellectual Property Rights rulings from June 2025."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This Intellectual Property Rights Roundup of June 2025 provides an overview of important cases of intellectual property rights that made headlines this month, such as the Supreme Court\u2019s<\/span> decision on continued copyright infringement, Bombay High Court\u2019s grant of injunction, Delhi High Court\u2019s<\/span> decision on misused trade mark and Kerala High Court\u2019s compensation over deceptively similar mark, and more<\/span>. These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, deceptively similar trade mark, misusing registered trade mark, and other aspects of intellectual property rights.<\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Bombay HC quashes order refusing \u2018WR\u2019 trade mark to Yamaha for similarity with Honda\u2019s \u2018WR-V\u2019<\/p>\n

In the present petition, Manish Pitale, J., dealt with the issue of refusal to register the trade mark \u2018WR\u2019 to the petitioner, Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha (\u2018Yamaha\u2019) by the Registrar\/Examiner of Trade Marks (the \u2018respondent\u2019). The Registrar cited similarity with Honda\u2019s \u2018WR-V\u2019 and stated that there would be a likelihood of confusion in the minds of public between the trade mark of Yamaha, of which the registration was sought, and similar trade marks already on the register. The Court quashed the cryptic order by the Registrar and directed him to advertise the application before acceptance as per Section 20(1)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (\u2018the Act\u2019). [Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha v. Registrar, Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2332<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

COPYRIGHT<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Whether stay on Delhi HC\u2019s 15th April order in PPL v. Azure Hospitality copyright case is binding on both parties? SC clarifies<\/p>\n

While considering the instant petition seeking clarification of the Court\u2019s previous order dated 21-4-2025, wherein it had put a stay on Delhi High Court\u2019s order dated 15-4-2025, in Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2407 (impugned judgment); the Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, JJ., clarified that stay granted via Order dated 21-4-2025, on directions issued in Para 27 of the impugned judgment, would be binding inter-se between Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) and Azure Hospitality. [Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1381<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TRADE MARK<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in favour of Bima Sugam India Federation; restrains use of \u2018BIMA SUGAM\u2019 mark<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by Bima Sugam India Federation, the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off of the mark \u2018BIMA SUGAM\u2019, Amit Bansal, J., stated that a prima facie case had been out on behalf of the plaintiff. Balance of convenience was also in the plaintiff\u2019s favour and against the defendants. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Bima Sugam India Federation and restrained Defendant 1, all others acting on his behalf, from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any manner with any goods or services using the mark \u2018BIMA SUGAM\u2019. [Bima Sugam India Federation v. A Range Gowda, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4337<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Delhi High Court protects \u2018BURGER SINGH\u2019 trade mark in Franchise Violation Case<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, seeking to direct the respondent from using the mark \u2018BURGER SINGH\u2019 or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar, Jyoti Singh, J., protected \u2018BURGER SINGH\u2019 trade mark in the franchise violation case and directed that till the next date of hearing, the respondent should not use the mark \u2018BURGER SINGH\u2019 or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar for its goods and services. [ [Tipping Mr. Pink (P) Ltd. v. Prabhat Ranjan, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4347<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Delhi High Court rejects OSWAL\u2019s trademark appeal for \u2018ONE FOR ALL\u2019 mark as descriptive and non-distinctive<\/p>\n

An appeal was filed under Section 91<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> and Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 seeking to set aside the order dated 14-12-2023 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, whereby, the appellant\u2019s Trade Mark Application in Class 16, for the mark \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d, in respect of goods, i.e., books, that it publishes and sells, was rejected. Mini Pushkarna, J., held that in the absence of inherent distinctiveness, and considering the appellant\u2019s failure to establish secondary meaning, the impugned order of refusal is well-founded in law, and merits no interference. [Oswal Books and Learnings Pvt Ltd v. Registrar of Trademark, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4113<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Know why Bombay HC granted interim injunction to \u2018Parachute\u2019 against \u2018CocoPlus\u2019 in trade mark dispute<\/p>\n

In the present case, the plaintiff-Marico Ltd. filed an interim application against Defendant 1-Zee Hygine Products (P) Ltd., seeking interim reliefs for infringement of its registered trade mark\/trade dress, copyright in the artistic work, and passing off of its three products \u201cPARACHUTE\u201d, \u201cPARACHUTE ADVANSED\u201d and \u201cPARACHUTE JASMINE\/PARACHUTE ADVANSED JASMINE\u201d. A Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the defendant had prima facie infringed the plaintiff\u2019s proprietary rights and thus restrained the defendants from using marks, packaging, labels, artistic works, and trade dress deceptively similar to plaintiff\u2019s registered trade mark. [Marico Ltd. v. Zee Hygine Products (P) Ltd., Interim Application [L] No. 33099 of 2024] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Delhi High Court grants interim injunction to VOLVO in a trade mark infringement case<\/p>\n

In a suit filed by the plaintiffs for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon the plaintiffs\u2019 trade mark, A Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J*, granted ex-parte ad interim injunction while observing that the defendants wilfully misused the plaintiffs\u2019 trade mark to encash on the plaintiffs\u2019 well-established goodwill and name. [Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Ganesh Motor Body Repairs, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4549<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/h2>\n

Operation Sindoor and the Commodification of National Sentiment: A Legal and Ethical Crossroads in Trade Mark Law<\/a><\/p>\n

WELL-KNOWN MARK<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling<\/p>\n

Bombay High Court: The petitioner challenged the order dated 31-10-2023 passed by Respondent 1-Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, whereby an application for inclusion of the registered trade mark \u2018TikTok\u2019 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 \u2018TikTok\u2019, a registered trade mark in the list of \u201cwell-known\u201d under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (\u20182017 Rules\u2019) as there was nationwide ban imposed on the petitioner\u2019s application \u2018TikTok\u2019 by the Government of India pertaining to sovereignty and integrity of India, Defence of India, Security of State and Public Order. [TikTok Ltd. v. Registrar, Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2323<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Bombay HC grants interim relief to \u2018SOCIAL\u2019 restaurant against \u2018SOCIAL TRIBE\u2019 in trade mark dispute<\/p>\n

The present interim application was filed by the applicant \u2018SOCIAL\u2019 seeking remedy for trade mark infringement and passing off. The defendant \u2018SOCIAL TRIBE\u2019 was using the mark in a manner which was deceptively similar to the one registered by the applicant. A Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., after comparing both the marks, held that adding the suffix \u2018TRIBE\u2019 to the word \u2018SOCIAL\u2019 did not change the fact that the defendant attempted to infringe the registered trade mark of the applicant. The Court granted injunctive relief to the applicant by restraining and prohibiting the defendant from infringing upon the applicant\u2019s registered trade mark. [Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Social Tribe, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2389<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018MILNNA\u2019 to pay Rs. 1 crore compensation to \u2018MILMA\u2019 in a trade mark infringement case: Inside Kerala Court ruling<\/p>\n

In a suit for perpetual injunction and realisation of Rs 1 crore in damages, the Principal Commercial Judge, Thiruvanthapuram, Mariam Salomi, J*, opined that the impugned mark \u2018MILNNA\u2019 is a blatant copy of the prior registered mark of the plaintiff, i.e., \u2018MILMA\u2019, and the defendant is unjustly enriching at the cost of the plaintiff. Therefore, the Court granted perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from marketing, offering for sale, advertising for sale and selling any milk or milk products or allied products using the impugned mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff\u2019s registered trade mark \u2018MILMA\u2019. [Kerala Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Jose George, CS No. 169 of 2022] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Delhi High Court grants interim injunction to Domino\u2019s in trade mark infringement case<\/p>\n

In an application for permanent injunction filed by Domino\u2019s and its group companies (\u2018the plaintiffs\u2019) against several fast-food joints with deceptively similar trade marks\/names, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J* opined that in disputes involving edible products, the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower than that applied in other cases. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Dominos and restrained Defendants 1-15 from infringing the plaintiffs\u2019 trade mark. [Domino\u2019s IP Holder LLC v. Domnics Pizza, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4557<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Delhi High Court protects \u2018BURGER SINGH\u2019 trade mark in Franchise Violation Case<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, seeking to direct the respondent from using the mark \u2018BURGER SINGH\u2019 or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar, Jyoti Singh, J., protected \u2018BURGER SINGH\u2019 trade mark in the franchise violation case and directed that till the next date of hearing, the respondent should not use the mark \u2018BURGER SINGH\u2019 or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar for its goods and services. [ [Tipping Mr. Pink (P) Ltd. v. Prabhat Ranjan, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4347<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

In news:<\/h2>\n

Khaitan & Co. represents Inox India in securing interim injunction against Cryogas in copyright and confidentiality dispute.<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/h2>\n