{"id":365789,"date":"2025-11-05T11:00:51","date_gmt":"2025-11-05T05:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=365789"},"modified":"2025-11-05T10:16:47","modified_gmt":"2025-11-05T04:46:47","slug":"legal-roundup-ipr-october-2025-copyright-trademark-personality-rights-patent-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/05\/legal-roundup-ipr-october-2025-copyright-trademark-personality-rights-patent-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Intellectual Property Rights October 2025: A monthly digest of key IPR developments"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This Intellectual Property Rights October 2025 Roundup includes important cases that made news this month, like Bombay HC’s<\/span> relief to Akshay Kumar<\/span>, Suniel Shetty<\/span>, and Asha Bhosle<\/span> in deepfake disputes; Delhi HC’s<\/span> protection of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar<\/span> and Nagarjuna’s<\/span> persona; Madras HC’s<\/span> injunction favouring the film BROCODE<\/span>; and Allahabad HC’s<\/span> ruling in a copyright tussle over product-related documents. Courts also upheld trade mark rights over KIND<\/span>, ALKEM<\/span>, BARBIE<\/span>, INDIA GATE<\/span> and Skechers<\/span>, and recognised WIPRO<\/span> and JIO<\/span> as well-known marks. These rulings reflect evolving standards in personality rights, brand protection, and Intellectual Property enforcement.<\/p>\n

COPYRIGHT<\/h2>\n

Allahabad High Court<\/span> | No relief to Jamp India, VS International over copyright infringement of Jubilant Generic’s Product Dossiers<\/p>\n

In a batch of two appeals filed under Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘CC Act’) against the order passed by Commercial Court restraining the appellants from reproducing or using in any manner the copyrighted Product Dossiers of the defendant in relation to certain products, the Division Bench of Arun Bhansali, CJ., and Kshitij Shailendra*, J., dismissed the appeals holding that the findings recorded by the Commercial Court were not perverse as the appellants did commit copyright infringement. [Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v. Jubilant Generics Ltd., Commercial Appeal No. 14 of 2025] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Bombay High Court<\/span> | Bombay HC grants ex-parte injunction to Skechers in trade mark and copyright dispute over counterfeit goods.<\/p>\n

In the present interim application, Skechers South Asia (P) Ltd. (‘plaintiffs’) filed a suit against Manmeet Singh Trading (‘defendant’), alleging infringement of trade mark and copyright through counterfeit goods bearing Skechers’ registered marks and artistic works. To prevent further harm, the plaintiffs sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointment of a Court Receiver. [Skechers South Asia (P) Ltd. v. Manmeet Singh Trading, Interim Application (L) No. 32420 of 2025] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR<\/h2>\n

Delhi High Court<\/span> | Delhi High Court grants relief to WOW! MOMOS; restrains use of mark WOW BURGER<\/p>\n

In an appeal against the order dated 12-9-2025 (‘impugned order’) wherein the Single Judge of the Court had refused to restrain the use of the mark WOW BURGER by the respondent, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., held that the mark WOW BURGER was deceptively similar to the mark WOW! MOMO. The Court opined that a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection was likely to get confused between the marks. Thus, the Court granted an injunction restraining the respondents from using the mark WOW BURGER. [WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. WOW Burger, FAO (OS) (COMM) No. 143 of 2025] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court<\/span> | Delhi High Court grants interim injunction protecting Mankind Pharma’s ‘KIND’ trade mark.<\/p>\n

In an application filed by Mankind Pharma Limited (‘Mankind’) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (‘CPC’) for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing on the Mankind’s trade mark, ‘KIND’, FENDIKIND’, ‘ZENKIND’ and ‘DIZIKIND’, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the defendants products were deceptively similar to those of the Mankind and amounted to infringement of Mankind’strade marks. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from using Mankind’s trade marks till further notice. [Akkineni Nagarjuna v. Bfxxx.org, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6331<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PATENT<\/h2>\n

Delhi High Court<\/span> | Delhi HC remands process patent registration for fresh consideration; flags Asst. Controller’s mechanical approach and lack of application of mind<\/p>\n

In the present case, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the judgement passed by the Single Judge upholding the order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (‘AC’), whereby the appellant’s application for registration of a process patent was rejected. The Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Ajay Digpaul, JJ., stated that order passed by the AC gave rise to a legitimate grievance of the adoption of a mere mechanical approach, uninformed by any serious application of mind. [Tapas Chatterjee v. Controller, Patents and Designs, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6369<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PERSONALITY RIGHTS<\/h2>\n

Bombay High Court<\/span> | Bombay HC grants interim injunction to Asha Bhosle protecting her Personality Rights; Orders blocking of infringing websites, platforms and YouTube videos<\/p>\n

The present interim application was filed in a Commercial Suit instituted by Asha Bhosle, seeking an injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 6 from infringement of her copyright and performer’s rights and the misappropriation of her Personality Rights. A Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., while observing that unauthorizedly using Asha Bhosle’s persona amounted to infringement of her Personality Rights, granted a temporary injunction in favour of Asha Bhosle and directed that any violative content be taken down, and the infringing websites, platforms and YouTube channels be blocked. [Asha Bhosle v. Mayc Inc, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3485<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Bombay High Court<\/span> | Bombay High Court condemns realistic AI deepfake video targeting Akshay Kumar, orders urgent takedown to protect his personality rights and public safety.<\/p>\n

In the present application, actor Akshay Kumar sought protection of his personality rights, privacy rights, and the right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as protection of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. A Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., while granting ex parte interim relief, held that Akshay Kumar possessed an inherent and enforceable right to control, protect, and commercially exploit his personality, and that any unauthorised use constituted a violation of both his personality\/publicity rights and his fundamental rights under the Constitution. The Court, therefore, directed that such content be removed from the public domain immediately, in both Akshay Kumar’s and the larger public interest. [Akshay Hari Om Bhatia v. John Doe, Interim Application (L) No. 33184 of 2025] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Bombay High Court<\/span> | ‘This case warrants immediate grant of ex-parte ad-interim relief’; Bombay HC protects Suniel Shetty from AI deepfakes and misuse of persona<\/p>\n

The present application was filed by Suniel Shetty seeking protection of his personality rights, privacy rights and the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and as well as for the protection of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. A Single Judge Bech of Arif S. Doctor, J., held that Suniel Shetty had made a prima facie case and if the ad-interim relief was not granted, he would suffer irreparable injury and harm. Therefore, the Court granted ex-parte interim relief to Suniel Shetty, restricting the defendants from utilizing or infringing uniquely identifiable attribute, including through Artificial Intelligence generated content, deepfake videos, voice cloned audio, etc. The Defendants were also directed to take down\/remove\/disable access to such infringing listings\/pages\/content. [Suniel V Shetty v. John Doe S Ashok Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3918<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court<\/span> | ‘The Art of Living’ Guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Personality Rights protected: Inside Delhi High Court ruling<\/p>\n

In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the plaintiff, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar sought protection of his Personality Rights, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, granted a John Doe injunction in favor of Ravi Shankar restricting Defendant 1 from creating and disseminating AI generated videos of the plaintiff. [Ravi Shankar v. John Doe, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6332<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court<\/span> | Delhi HC grants interim injunction to Telugu Actor Nagarjuna in Personality Rights case; Restrains misuse of his name, image, and voice without consent<\/p>\n

In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by the popular actor Akkineni Nagarjuna for protection of his personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the unauthorised use of the actor’s name, image and persona constituted an infringement of his Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Akkineni Nagarjuna and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites and disseminating content that violated his Personality Rights. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also read:<\/span> What are Personality Rights? The rise of Celebrity Lawsuits Explained<\/a><\/p>\n

Also watch:<\/span> https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/shorts\/RGe863kPFhg<\/a><\/p>\n

TRADE MARK<\/h2>\n

Bombay High Court<\/span> | Bombay High Court grants ad-interim relief to Reliance Industries in trade mark infringement case against ‘JIO’ cab services<\/p>\n

The instant interim application was filed by Reliance Industries Limited (plaintiff), for the passing off and infringement of the trade mark ‘JIO’ and the domain name www.jiocabs.com. A Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., held that ‘JIO’ was a well-known trade mark, and opined that on examination of rival marks, a strong prima facie case of trade mark infringement had been made out. Thus, the Court held that continued usage of a well-known and protected brand name would cause grave injury to the plaintiff. [Reliance Industries Limited v. Asif Ahmed, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3754<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court<\/span> | Can infringement action be filed against a registered trade mark? Delhi HC answers<\/p>\n

In an appeal against a commercial Court order, wherein the Court had granted an injunction restraining the appellants from using their registered trade mark ‘VAIDYA RISHI’, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ, held that no action for infringement can lie against a proprietor of a registered trade mark. Thus, the Court set aside the order of injunction against the appellants. [Vaidya Rishi India Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Dutt Parashar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6147<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court<\/span> | Delhi High Court restrains Alchem International from using trade mark ‘ALCHEM’ in sale of medical products.<\/p>\n

In an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the petitioner, Alkem Laboratories sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant, Alchem International from using the trade mark ‘ALCHEM’ in sale of its pharmaceutical and medical products, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J, held that the plaintiff’s mark ‘ALKEM’ and the defendant’s mark ‘ALCHEM’ were phonetically and visually similar. [Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Alchem International Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6412<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court<\/span> | Delhi High Court grants relief to Mattel over ‘BARBIE’ trade mark dispute<\/p>\n

In an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) filed by Mattel Inc. for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon the trade mark ‘BARBIE’, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that the defendant’s marks were visually, phonetically and conceptually identical to that of the plaintiff’s and amounted to infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from using the ‘BARBIE’ trade mark till further notice. [Mattel Inc. v. Padum Borah, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6312<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Kerala High Court<\/span> | Kerala High Court dismisses plea to cancel ‘INDIA GATE’ trade mark; clarifies jurisdiction is with Delhi HC<\/p>\n

The present Special Jurisdiction Case was filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Trade Marks Act’) and the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Copyright Act’), by the petitioner (‘Pas Agro Foods’), a firm in Kerala, to cancel the trade mark registration ‘INDIA GATE’ owned by Respondent 1 (‘KRBL Ltd.’), incorporated in New Delhi. A Single Judge Bench of M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J., dismissed the present case, observing that the rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act could not be filed before the Kerala High Court as Delhi High Court was the proper forum given that the trade mark was registered at the Delhi Trade Mark Registry. [Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Ltd., SP. JC No. 2 of 2025] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Madras High Court<\/span> | Madras HC orders ‘Bro Code’ alcoholic beverage makers to not make infringement threats over Ravi Mohan Studio’s upcoming film ‘BROCODE’<\/p>\n

In the present application, Ravi Mohan Studios (P) Ltd. (plaintiff), sought a declaration that using the title “BROCODE” for its upcoming film did not violate the trademark rights of Indo Bevs (P) Ltd. (defendant), and requested an injunction to prevent threats or interference with the film’s production and promotion. A Single Judge Bench of V. Lakshminarayanan, J., while issuing a temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff, restrained the defendant from issuing or making groundless threats or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff’s production, publicity, marketing, distribution, exhibition, and release of the film titled “BROCODE”. [Ravi Mohan Studios (P) Ltd. v. Indo Bevs (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 8179<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

WELL-KNOWN MARK<\/h2>\n

Delhi High Court<\/span> | Delhi High Court declares WIPRO a well-known trade mark<\/p>\n

In a civil commercial suit filed by WIPRO seeking declaration of the mark ‘WIPRO’ as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘TM Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that WIPRO had garnered immense goodwill and reputation both in India and abroad and such deserved to be classified as a well-known trade mark. [WIPRO Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Shivam Udhyog , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6427<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/h2>\n