{"id":355782,"date":"2025-08-06T10:30:11","date_gmt":"2025-08-06T05:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=355782"},"modified":"2025-08-06T10:50:15","modified_gmt":"2025-08-06T05:20:15","slug":"intellectual-property-rights-july-2025-roundup-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/intellectual-property-rights-july-2025-roundup-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"IPR July 2025: A quick recap of the Months\u2019 top Intellectual Property Rights cases"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This Intellectual Property Rights Roundup of July 2025 explores various important cases, ranging from Prada\u2019s Kolhapuri Chappal Case to Swagath vs Hotel Swagath, from counterfeit Cetaphil products to Reliance trademark suit, from Sonu Nigam\u2019s personality rights to Kannappa Piracy Case, and much more.<\/p>\n

COPYRIGHT<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Interim relief granted to Empire Spices and Foods Ltd. for mark \u201cRAM BANDHU\u201d against mark \u201cSHREE RAM BANDHU\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

An interim application was filed by Empire Spices and Foods Ltd. (applicant), wherein an interim injunction was sought against the respondent for alleged infringement of the registered trade mark \u201cRAM BANDHU\u201d, associated artistic copyright, and passing off. A Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., granted interim relief to the applicant, noting the deceptive similarity between the applicant\u2019s registered trade mark \u201cRAM BANDHU \u201d and the respondent\u2019s mark \u201cSHREE RAM BANDHU \u201d. The Court held that the applicant had established a prima facie case of infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (the \u2018Act\u2019) and reiterated the principle that copying the essential features of a registered mark amounted to infringement, even when an additional element, such as the prefix \u201cSHREE\u201d, was present. Read<\/span> more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Ex-parte injunction granted in \u2018Kannappa\u2019 Piracy Case; directs Meta & X to take down infringing URLs<\/span><\/p>\n

In an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> read with Section 151<\/a> CPC<\/a> for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, Jyoti Singh, J., held that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction as the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, was not granted. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

GEOGRAPHICAL IDENTIFICATION<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018Specific Geographical Identifiers would ensure no confusion\u2019; Chile-Peru dispute over naming alcoholic beverage \u2018PISCO\u2019, decided<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition challenging the order dated 29-11-2018 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), wherein the Board granted the Geographical Indication (\u2018GI\u2019) tag, PISCO exclusively to the Embassy of Peru, the Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J*, held that the since the alcoholic beverage PISCO is extensively produced by both Chile and Peru, the use of GI PISCO without geographical identifiers such as \u2018Chilean\u2019 and \u2018Peruvian\u2019 would be deceptive, misleading and cause confusion in the minds of the consumers. Thus, the Court stated that recognizing rights of both Chile and Peru for GI PISCO, with specific geographical identifier, would ensure that there is no confusion between Chilean PISCO and Peruvian PISCO, at the same time providing both Chile and Peru the right to prevent third parties from using the GI PISCO. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | PIL in Kolhapuri Chappal GI violation case against PRADA dismissed; Proper statutory remedies upheld<\/span><\/p>\n

The present Public Interest Litigation (\u2018PIL\u2019) was filed by the petitioner and five other advocates against the global fashion giant, PRADA. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to restrain PRADA from commercializing and using \u2018toe ring sandals\u2019 alleged to be deceptively similar to Geographical Indication (\u2018GI\u2019) tagged product \u2018Kolhapuri Chappal\u2019 without securing authorisation from the registered proprietor or authorised users. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J. and Sandeep V. Marne*, J., dismissed the PIL, holding that such statutory and proprietary rights under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999<\/a> (the \u2018G.I. Act\u2019) must be enforced through appropriate remedy by filing Civil Suit by the registered proprietors themselves, and not through a PIL. The Court emphasised that questions involving an infringement action in registered GI could not be brought by way of a petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PERSONALITY RIGHTS<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Entitled to safeguard his privacy\u2019; Interim relief granted to Sonu Nigam against impersonation by Sonu Nigam Singh on \u2018X\u2019<\/p>\n

The present application was filed by the celebrated Indian playback singer, Sonu Nigam (applicant), seeking protection of his personality rights including his name, image, photograph, likeness, and persona, against misrepresentation, misuse of all hues and unauthorised\/unlicensed use on the internet by another individual, Sonu Nigam Singh (Defendant 1). A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., while granting an ad-interim injunction held that Sonu Nigam was entitled to the protection of his distinctive name\/mark, especially when the manner of use by Defendant 1 led to complete misrepresentation. The Court clarified that Defendant 1 was free to use the whole name \u2018Sonu Nigam Singh\u2019 in respect of his social media account on \u2018X\u2019, provided it did not cause misrepresentation, confusion, or deception. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TRADEMARK<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Swagath vs Hotel Swagath: Notice issued in Trademark Suit; Next hearing on August 27<\/span><\/p>\n

Two parallel suit was filed by popular New Delhi-based restaurant chain, Swagath (plaintiff) against a Telangana-based hospitality enterprise operating under the identical name \u2018Swagath\u2019 alleging infringement of its mark and sought cancellation of the rival\u2019s registered trademark. Amit Bansal, J., issued notice in both proceedings and directed that the matter be listed on 27-08-2025 for consideration of interim relief. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> John Doe injunction granted to Galderma against counterfeit CETAPHIL products<\/span><\/p>\n

In an application filed for ad-interim relief, it was alleged by Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. (\u2018plaintiff\u2019) that the defendants sold goods bearing the plaintiff\u2019s trade mark and artistic work and therefore it sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from doing so. A Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., opined that upon comparison of the products of the plaintiff and the defendants, it was prima facie evident that the defendants\u2019 products were counterfeit products as it did not contain the barcode, maximum retail price (MRP) etc., which indicated that the same did not originate from the plaintiff and was a slavish copy of the plaintiff\u2019s trade mark and artistic work. Therefore, the Court granted an injunction prohibiting the defendants from infringing on the plaintiff\u2019s products. Read<\/span> more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Ex parte injunction granted in favour of Birkenstock against counterfeit footwear sales<\/span><\/p>\n

A suit was filed by Birkenstock IP GmbH (plaintiff), a German limited liability company operating in India through its wholly owned subsidiary Birkenstock India Pvt. Ltd., seeking permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from infringing its intellectual property specifically its trademarks, copyrights, and registered designs related to its well-known BIRKENSTOCK brand of footwear. Saurabh Banerjee, J., granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, storing, importing, exporting, or dealing in any products bearing the plaintiff\u2019s registered marks or deceptively similar marks, including trade dress, shape marks, logos, packaging, or any other infringing material. Read<\/span> more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Dynamic Injunction granted against Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, Meesho & Others in Reliance trademark suit<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s intellectual property rights) from using the mark \u2018RELIANCE\u2019, \u2018JIO\u2019 and any other mark identical\/ deceptively similar marks, including their variants, as also restraining the said defendants from using any packaging incorporating plaintiff\u2019s artistic work thereby amounting to infringement of the plaintiff\u2019s 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 \u2018RELIANCE\u2019 and \u2018JIO\u2019 Formative Trademarks or any other identical\/ deceptively similar to mark \u2018RELIANCE\u2019 and \u2018JIO\u2019 including the plaintiff\u2019s \u2018RELIANCE\u2019 and \u2018JIO\u2019 Formative Trademarks. Read<\/span> more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | Trade Mark cannot be removed from official records without Notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act<\/p>\n

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)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (\u2018Act\u2019), and Rule 58 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (\u2018Rules\u2019), 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. R<\/span>ead<\/span> more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Sale of \u2018Old Mist Coffee Rum\u2019 restrained in trade mark dispute with \u2018Old Monk\u2019<\/p>\n

In the present application, Mohan Meaking Ltd. (\u2018plaintiff\u2019), a proprietor of \u2018Old Monk Coffee\u2019 alleged that the \u2018Old Mist\u2019 coffee-flavoured rum, being sold by Eston Roman Brewery & Distillery (P) Ltd. (\u2018defendant\u2019) was akin to the one being sold by the petitioner, and prayed that the defendant to be restrained from selling the infringing product. A Single Judge Bench of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., observed that the plaintiff had a registered trade mark and its infringement could not be allowed and passed an ex parte interim order restraining the sale and distribution of the defendant\u2019s product, i.e. Old Mist Coffee Rum. R<\/span>ead<\/span> more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> Seizure order set aside for non-compliance with S. 115(4) of Trade Marks Act; Interim release of 1,350 rice bags ordered<\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal revision case filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (\u2018BNSS\u2019), 2023, the accused had prayed for a direction to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pudukottai, and to set aside the same. The accused had also sought an order directing the return of 1,350 kg of rice bags seized by the police. The matter was heard and disposed of by the Single Judge Bench of L. Victoria Gowri,J. Without delving into the merits of the alleged trade mark or copyright infringement, the Court found that the impugned order was liable to be set aside, on the grounds of procedural irregularity in seizure and the risk of undue prejudice to the accused. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Court directed that the 1,350 bags of rice be released to the accused in interim custody, subject to certain conditions prescribed to safeguard the ongoing investigation and trial. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<p”>DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> \u2018NUTELLA\u2019 declared as a well-known trade mark<\/span><\/p>\n

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 \u2018NUTELLA\u2019 and , and even sought their mark \u2018NUTELLA\u2019 to be declared as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(zg)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (\u2018the 1999 Act\u2019). A Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., declared \u2018NUTELLA\u2019\/ as a \u2018well-known trade mark\u2019 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 \u2018NUTELLA\u2019 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<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/h3>\n