{"id":358860,"date":"2025-09-03T17:00:26","date_gmt":"2025-09-03T11:30:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=358860"},"modified":"2025-09-03T18:05:59","modified_gmt":"2025-09-03T12:35:59","slug":"intellectual-property-rights-august-2025-roundup-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/intellectual-property-rights-august-2025-roundup-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"IPR August 2025: A quick recap of the Months\u2019 top Intellectual Property Rights cases"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This Intellectual Property Rights Roundup of August 2025 explores various important cases, such as interim injunction denied for Blenders Pride mark, Dream Girl 2’s copyright, ban on Sci-hub, Miniso’s design piracy case, Own Name Defence in Trade Marks, and much more.<\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MONTH<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> |<\/span><\/span> No interim injunction to Pernod Ricard for mark ‘Blenders Pride’ against ‘London Pride’ in a trade mark infringement case<\/span><\/p>\n

In the present case, an appeal was filed against the judgment dated 3-11-2023 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereby the appellants’ challenge to the order dated 26-11-2020 passed by the Commercial Court, was dismissed. The Commercial Court had rejected the appellants application for interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’ alleging that it was deceptively similar to the appellants marks, ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’, ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’, and ‘SEAGRAM’S’, amounting to trade mark infringement. [Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701<\/a>]<\/span> Read more<\/span> <\/span><\/span>HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RAJASHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | Speedy disposal of Trademark application a Fundamental Right under Article 21<\/span><\/p>\n

In a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction against the Registrar of Trademarks to decide the Trademark application pending for more than 15 years, a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that the right to a speedy and expeditious disposal of trademark applications is an integral part of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. The Court issued a general direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to decide all pending applications expeditiously and emphasized that excessive delays keep the parties in state of uncertainty and prevent them from moving forward with their lives and businesses. [Nirmala Kabra v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4072<\/a>] Read<\/span> more HERE<\/span><\/a> <\/span> <\/p>\n

COPYRIGHT<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> ‘Copyright cannot be claimed on common ideas’: Copyright infringement case against Balaji Telefilms for ‘Dream Girl 2’, dismissed<\/span><\/p>\n

The present application was filed by the applicant seeking an injunction to restrain defendant 1-Balaji Telefilms, from exploiting their film titled Dream Girl 2, alleging infringement of his script, ‘Kal Kisne Dekha’ which had been re-registered as ‘The Show Must Go On’, and for the breach of confidence allegedly committed by defendant 4. A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., upon finding that the rival works were completely different and the claim of breach of confidence was far-fetched , dismissed the application and awarded costs to defendant 1 and 5 to be paid by the applicant. [Ashim Kumar Bagchi v. Balaji Telefilms Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2837<\/a>] <\/span>Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span><\/span> DoT and MeitY directed to block Sci-hub, Sci-net and affiliate websites in copyright infringement suit; Held Founder guilty of contempt for violating 2020 undertaking<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2<\/a>A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (‘CPC’) seeking direction against defendant 1, to restrain them from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff’s literary works. A Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora J., held that defendant’s action of uploading and making available for viewing plaintiffs copyrighted articles on Sci-Net as well as Sci-Hub was in violation of the undertaking dated 24-12-2020 and therefore defendant was prima facie guilty of contempt. The Court alsodirected the Department of Telecommunications (‘DoT’) and Ministry of Electronics and IT (‘MeitY’) to issue a notification to block access to defendant 1’s website, pass blocking orders within 72 hours, and ensure that access to the website is effectively blocked within 24 hours thereafter. [Elsevier Ltd. v. Alexandra Elbakyan, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5678<\/a>]<\/span> Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘No copyright on film title’: Relief denied to ‘LOOTERE’ film producers against web series with same title<\/span> <\/p>\n

In a copyright infringement case seeking temporary injunction, filed by the plaintiff against the use of the title “LOOTERE” for the cinematographic work, the Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., dismissed the application and held that copyright subsists in a cinematographic film itself, as well as in its literary work, thus, as long as the story of the two films is different, mere similarity in the title would not give rise to an actionable claim under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957<\/a> (‘Copyright Act’). Thus, the Court stated that since title of a book or a film does not constitute a ‘work’ within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, no copyright can subsist in a mere film title. [Sunil v. Star India (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2937<\/a>] Read<\/span> more HERE<\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n

DESIGNS<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Interim injunction granted to Travel Blue Products for its ‘Tranquility neck pillow’ in design piracy case against Miniso<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a design infringement and passing off case against Miniso with reference to Travel Blue’s ‘Tranquility Neck Pillow’, A Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., stated that upon prima facie comparison of the rival products, the overall similarity between the two products is likely to deceive the consumer in believing that Miniso’s goods were that of the Travel Blue Products. The imitation of the Travel Blue’s registered design amounts to prima facie misrepresentation of association with it. Therefore, the Court granted interim injunction to Travel Blue Products, for its ‘Tranquility neck pillow’ in design piracy case against Miniso. [Travel Blue Products India (P) Ltd. v. Miniso Life Style (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2792<\/a>]<\/span> Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PATENTS<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘<\/span><\/span>Simplicity no bar to patentability of an invention’; Vertical Rotary Parking System application remanded to Controller for de novo consideration<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed under Section 117A<\/a> of the Patents Act, 1970<\/a> (‘Patents Act’) against the order, passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs (‘Controller’), by way of which, the Controller rejected the appellant’s Indian Patent Application (‘subject application’), under Section 15 of the Patents Act, a single judge bench of Mini Pushkarna J. remanded the matter to the Controller for de novo consideration, to be completed and order being passed within four months, uninfluenced by the impugned order. [Dong Yang PC, Inc v. Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5112<\/a>]<\/span> Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> <\/span>S. 104A of Patents Act can be invoked at interim stage for disclosure of manufacturing process: Inside the verdict in Roche’s plea seeking disclosure of Zydus’s ‘Sigrima’ process<\/span><\/p>\n

In a suit filed by F Hoffmann Roche Ltd. and Genentech (‘collectively referred to as the Roche Group’) seeking access to information shared with members of a confidentiality club for claim mapping of its formulation and manufacturing process of the product ‘Sigrima’ used for treating breast cancer , the Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that Roche Group are not entitled to access the Zydus Lifesciences Limited (‘Zydus’) manufacturing process, as they had failed to meet the mandatory requirements under Section 104A<\/a> of the Patents Act, 1970<\/a> (‘the Act’). The Court further held that Section 104A may be used even at an interim stage to seek disclosure of process employed by Zydus and would prevail over provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (‘CPC’) relating to discovery and disclosure. [F-Hoffmann-LA Roche AG v. Zydus Lifesciences Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5027<\/a>]<\/span> Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TRADEMARK<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> ‘NUTELLA’ 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 ‘NUTELLA’ and , and even sought their mark ‘NUTELLA’ to be declared as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(zg)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘the 1999 Act’). A Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., declared ‘NUTELLA’\/ as a ‘well-known trade mark’ and granted permanent injunction to the plaintiffs, thereby restraining the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, packaging, supplying, distributing, selling, advertising, or dealing in any counterfeit ‘NUTELLA’ products. Further, the Court stated that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs 30,00,000 towards damages of the present proceedings and directed the defendant to pay Rs 2,00,000 as costs to Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund. [Ferrero SPA v. M.B. Enterprises, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5105<\/a>] Read<\/span> more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Interim injunction granted to financial services platform ‘INDmoney’ in trade mark infringement case<\/p>\n

In a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by INDmoney, alleging that defendant 1 had infringed their registered trade mark and scammed unsuspecting customers out of their hard-earned money, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that the illegal use of INDmoney’s trade mark by defendant 1 amounted to infringement of the registered trade mark. Therefore, the Court restrained defendant 1 and its representatives from using INDmoney’s trade mark, word mark or any deceptively or confusingly similar mark, in any manner that would constitute trade mark infringement, passing off or misappropriation of INDmoney’s registered trade mark and services. [Indmoney Tech (P) Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5334<\/a>] Read<\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Explained | Dabur Meswak Trademark suit: Rs 12,00,000 cost imposed for 48-day delay in filing Written Statement by VI-John quashed<\/p>\n

The present petition was filed under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> by VI-John Healthcare India LLP (‘VI-John’) being aggrieved by the order dated 6-2-2025 (‘Second Impugned Order’) passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application seeking condonation of 48 days delay in filing the written statement (‘Application’), in a suit claiming infringement of Trade Mark, copyright, passing off and damages to the tune of Rs 2,50,000 was allowed, subject to payment of Rs 25,000 per day of delay, without considering the grounds contained in the Application and in absence of any serious objection from Dabur India Ltd (‘Dabur’). A Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia J., allowed the petition, condoned the delay in filing written statement and set aside First and Second impugned orders, insofar as they imposed costs for delay, stating that the delay in filing the written statement was well within the prescribed 120 day limit and was supported by justifiable reasons stated in VI-John’s Application. [VI-John Healthcare India LLP v. Dabur India Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5122<\/a>] Read<\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Dynamic John Doe injunction granted in<\/span> <\/span>favour of ‘Ghar Soaps’; Directs e-commerce sites to block infringing listings<\/span><\/p>\n

In an application under Order 39 Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC) for an ad-interim injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 10 from selling\/facilitating the sale of counterfeit products with deceptively similar packaging as that of the Plaintiff’s (Ghar Soaps) product ‘GHAR SOAPS’, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, allowed the application for ad interim injunction. The Court further granted a dynamic John Doe injunction restraining any future or continuing infringement of the ‘GHAR SOAPS’ mark by directing e-commerce websites, including Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho, to block or suspend listings and blacklist such infringing sellers within 48 hours of receipt of complaint from the Ghar Soaps. [YMI Ghar Soaps (P) Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5612<\/a>]<\/span> Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span><\/span> ‘YATRA’ is a generic and descriptive word, cannot be monopolized: Relief denied to travel company in trade mark infringement suit<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In an application seeking injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the trade mark, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution, unfair competition by directly or indirectly using, selling, advertising, mentioning, or dealing in any manner, including as part of a domain name, the Marks ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’ or ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ (‘impugned trade marks’), a Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia J., observed that the word ‘YATRA’, was a generic and commonly descriptive word, meaning ‘travel’ in Hindi and could never become trade mark on its own as such words never acquire distinctiveness or a secondary meaning and do not indicate origin or source. It is settled law that words used in everyday language cannot be allowed to be monopolized. The Court further noted that ‘.com’ and ‘YATRA’ are both generic and non-distinctive making ‘YATRA.COM’ also generic, and thus, it could not be protected under common law of passing off. Thus, the defendant cannot be prevented from using the impugned trade marks ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ and ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’. [Yatra Online Ltd. v. Mach Conferences & Events Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5610<\/a>]<\/span> Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Interim relief granted to NDTV; Restrained websites and social media platforms from misusing NDTV Trade mark<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In an application filed by New Delhi Television (‘NDTV’) seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain Defendants No. 1 and 2 from infringing its trademarks, committing acts of passing off, and violating its copyrights, as well as seeking directions against Defendants 3 to 21 for enforcing interim reliefs against Defendants No. 1 and 2, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. granted relief in favour of NDTV. The Court observed that Defendants 1 and 2 had used the trade mark ‘NDTV’ in its entirety and, if not restrained, their actions would cause irreparable harm to the NDTV, which could not be adequately compensated in monetary terms. The Court formed a prima facie opinion that the defendants were engaging in unauthorised use and promotion of deceptively similar variants of the NDTV trade mark with the apparent intent to mislead the public into believing that they were connected or associated with NDTV. The Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Defendants 1 and 2 from infringing NDTV’s registered trademark ‘NDTV’, its formatives, and any other deceptively similar variants, in any manner whatsoever, including through domain names, websites, social media handles, messaging platforms, company names, or business documents or in any other form that would amount to trade mark infringement, passing off, or copyright violation. Further, Defendants 3 to 21 were directed to give effect to the said directions and ensure compliance within 48 hours from receipt of the order. [New Delhi Television Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5694<\/a>]<\/span> Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span><\/span> Own Name Defence in Trade Marks | Jewellery firm’s right to use founder’s name ‘Vasundhara’ protected; No injunction granted<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

An appeal was filed by Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.) challenging order dated 19-07-2023 passed by a Single Judge of this Court in a suit filed seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondents and all others acting on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, exporting, advertising or in any other manner dealing with jewellery, precious stones, gems and any other allied or cognate goods or services under the marks and domain names VASUNDHARA JEWELLERS, VASUNDHRA, or , the domain name www.vasundhara.in<\/a> or any other mark, label or domain name which is identical or deceptively similar to the appellant’s marks VASUNDHRA, VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS, or VASUNDHRA. A division bench of C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order due to absence of establishment of sufficient goodwill possessed by the appellant in the mark VASUNDHRA prior to the commencement of user, by the respondents, of the mark VASUNDHARA, no case of passing off can be set to exist, and the appellant cannot be held to be entitled to any injunction against the respondents. [Vasundhra Jewellers (P) Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5660<\/a>]<\/span> Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Interim relief granted to Hero Motocorp in ‘DESTINY’ scooters Trade mark infringement suit<\/span> <\/p>\n

In the present case,Hero Motocorp Ltd. (plaintiff) sought a decree of permanent injunction for infringement of its trade mark, passing off, unfair competition and other ancillary reliefs in respect of its trade mark ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’ and ‘DESTINI PRIME’ (‘Subject Marks’) under Classes 12 and 37. A Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia J., granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Hero MotoCorp Ltd., restraining Urban Electric Mobility (P) Ltd. and its associated entities (defendants) from using the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’ and ‘DESTINY PRO’ (‘impugned marks’) for two wheelers. It observed that irreparable injury would be caused to Hero Motocorp Ltd. if the defendants are allowed to continue to use the Impugned Marks. [Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Urban Electric Mobility (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5518<\/a>] Read<\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Interim relief granted to Premji Invest, orders blocking of fake Apps and websites misusing its trade mark<\/span> <\/p>\n

In an application under Order 39 Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Defendants 1, 2 and 20 from accessing and operating fake domain names, websites and applications using the trade mark ‘PREMJI INVEST’, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, allowed the application for ex-parte ad interim injunction. The Court further granted a dynamic injunction restraining any future or continuing infringement of the ‘INVEST PREMJI’ mark by directing the Department of Telecommunication (‘DOT’) and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (‘MEIT’) to take immediate steps for removal and blocking of any fake domain names, websites and applications within 24 hours of receipt of information from Invest Premji. [PI Investment Advisory LLP v. Registrant of Premjiex.com, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5590<\/a>] Read<\/span> more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span> <\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span><\/span> |<\/span> <\/span>‘Suffix ‘KIND’ has amassed significant goodwill by Mankind’: Order refusing registration of Mankind’s ‘PETKIND’ mark, set aside<\/span><\/p>\n

In the present case, an appeal was filed against order dated 15-3-2024 (‘impugned order’) , whereby Mankind Pharma’s (‘Mankind’) application for registration of ‘PETKIND’ mark in Class 5 was refused on ground that there is a prior application for registration of a mark, which is phonetically and visually similar to ‘PETKIND’ mark in respect of similar goods and services and under the same Class. A Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia J., observed that Mankind had over 210 registered trade marks in Class 5 alone with the suffix ‘KIND’ and had amassed significant goodwill. The Court stated that ‘PETKIND PHARMA’ mark would not lead to rejection of the ‘PETKIND MARK’, considering the overwhelming usage and registrations of marks with the suffix ‘KIND’ by the Mankind. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and stated that the Registrar of Trade Marks should proceed with the advertising of the ‘PETKIND’ mark, in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘the Act’). [Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5602<\/a>]<\/span> Read<\/span><\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/p>\n