{"id":368662,"date":"2025-12-04T11:00:45","date_gmt":"2025-12-04T05:30:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=368662"},"modified":"2025-12-04T14:44:55","modified_gmt":"2025-12-04T09:14:55","slug":"legal-roundup-ipr-november-2025-copyright-trademark-personality-rights-patent-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/04\/legal-roundup-ipr-november-2025-copyright-trademark-personality-rights-patent-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Intellectual Property Rights November 2025: Key IPR rulings of the Month"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

In November 2025, a series of significant developments unfolded across India’s Intellectual Property<\/span> landscape. From the Delhi HC’s orders restraining unauthorised cricket streaming<\/span> and addressing copyright and trade dress copying in the Visage Beauty dispute, to the Madras HC rejecting Marico<\/span>’s claim over Everest Coconut Oil<\/span> packaging, the month witnessed notable copyright rulings. Trade mark<\/span> actions were equally prominent, with courts protecting ITC’s GOLD FLAKE<\/span> and BUKHARA<\/span> marks, enforcing Asian Paints<\/span> and METRO<\/span> rights, and examining trade dress similarity in the SNT—SNN<\/span> popcorn dispute. Personality rights<\/span> also gained judicial focus, with relief granted to creator Raj Shamani<\/span> and news anchor Anjana Om Kashyap<\/span>. Together, these decisions capture the month’s most significant developments in copyright, trade mark, trade dress, and personality rights.<\/p>\n

COPYRIGHT<\/h3>\n

Delhi High Court|<\/span> Delhi HC restrains unauthorised cricket streams on rogue websites; Protects JioStar’s Exclusive Media Rights<\/p>\n

In an application filed by JioStar under Order 39, Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, seeking a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 4 (‘rogue websites’) from unauthorised streaming of India’s cricket matches, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that such unauthorised streaming would pose a significant threat to JioStar’s revenue streams and would undermine the considerable investment made by JioStar in acquiring the exclusive rights to stream such matches. [JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Cricfy TV, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8430<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court|<\/span> Delhi High Court restrains Freecia Professional from infringing on Visage Beauty’s O 3+ facial kits packaging and mark<\/p>\n

In a petition under Order 39, Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, wherein the petitioner, Visage Beauty sought an interim injunction restraining Defendant 1, Freecia Professional from infringing on its trade marks D-TAN, SHINE & GLOW and DERMOMELAN, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, granted the injunction and held that the ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ mentioned on Defendant 1’s products had been substantially copied from the plaintiff’s packaging and therefore amounted to trade mark and copyright infringement. [Visage Beauty and Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Freecia Professional India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8552<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Madras High Court|<\/span> Everest Coconut oil’s label and packaging ‘entirely distinct’ from Parachute: Madras High Court reject’s Marico’s Copyright claim<\/p>\n

While hearing a petition seeking suspension and removal of the respondent’s copyright registration, filed by Marico Ltd., manufacturer of well-known products including PARACHUTE, a Single Judge Bench of N. Senthilkumar, J., held that the petitioner’s claim of similarity between the respondent’s product and its own was wholly untenable. [Marico Ltd. v. Prahalad Rai Kedia, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9945<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR<\/h3>\n

Bombay High Court|<\/span> Bombay High Court upholds interim relief to Asian Paints in trade mark dispute, finds rival marks confusingly similar<\/p>\n

While adjudicating an interim application concerning infringement of trade mark and copyright in relation to wall putty and enamel products, the Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the impugned marks and pirated artworks were deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered trade marks and artistic works of the plaintiff—Asian Paints Ltd. [Asian Paints Ltd. v. Vinod Satyaprakashji Mittal, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4601<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court|<\/span> Delhi HC protects well-known trade mark ‘GOLD FLAKE’; restrains use of mark ‘GOLD FLAME’ in sale of cigarettes<\/p>\n

While hearing an interlocutory application filed under Order 39, Rule 4<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, for vacation of an order dated 13-3-2024, wherein the Court had granted ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon the plaintiff, ITC’s registered trade mark ‘GOLD FLAKE’, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the copying of trade dress while dealing with the same type of products amounts to passing off. Accordingly the injunction granted under the order dated 13-3-2024 was confirmed and made absolute by the Court. [ITC Ltd. v. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4465<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PERSONALITY RIGHTS<\/h3>\n

Delhi High Court|<\/span> ‘Known face in content creation’; Delhi High Court protects podcast host Raj Shamani’s personality rights<\/p>\n

While considering a suit filed under Order 39, Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> CPC<\/a>, seeking ad-interim injunction restraining trade mark infringement, passing off and misappropriation of personality and performer’s rights of content creator Raj Shamani (Plaintiff 1), the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that Raj Shamani is a known face in the field of content creation in India and has attained sufficient goodwill and reputation. [Raj Shamani v. John Doe, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8540<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court|<\/span> Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to news anchor Anjana Om Kashyap against Fake YouTube Impersonation<\/p>\n

In an application for permanent injunction for violation of intellectual property rights, disclosure against impersonation and misuse of personality rights of Plaintiff 2, Anjana Om Kashyap, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, granted permanent injunction in favour of the news anchor. Since the YouTube Channel had already been disabled by Defendant 1, Google LLC, the Court did not pass any further orders regarding the same[T.V. Today Network Ltd. v. Google LLC, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8504<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TRADE MARK<\/h3>\n

Bombay High Court|<\/span> Bombay High Court sets aside injunction in trade mark dispute between SNN and UP-based popcorn maize seller<\/p>\n

In the present appeal, the appellant, SNT and Co., challenged the order of the District Judge, Nagpur, restraining it from using the trade mark “SNT” for “popcorn maize” and related products, based on allegations by the respondent, Shah Nanji Nagis Exports (P) Ltd., of deceptive similarity with its registered mark “SNN”. A Single Judge Bench of Rohit W. Joshi, J., while setting aside the District Court’s order held that the matter needs to be remanded to the Trial Court for deciding the application for grant of temporary injunction afresh. The Court emphasised that while deciding as to whether two trade dresses\/packets are deceptively similar or not, a Court must look at the packet\/trade dress as a whole and should not give undue importance to certain distinguishing factors in the two trade dresses\/packets. [SNT and Co. v. Shah Nanji Nagis Exports (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4202<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Bombay High Court|<\/span> Bombay High Court restrains METRO FOOTWEAR from infringing registered trade mark ‘METRO’; To decide if ‘METRO’ a well-known mark<\/p>\n

In an issue to determine whether the defendants, by using the impugned mark METRO FOOTWEAR, had violated the proprietary rights of the registered owner of the trade mark ‘METRO’, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., while allowing the interim application, held that the registered mark ‘METRO’ had been continuously used since 1955, with its registration in 1972, and therefore, granted temporary injunctions to restrain the defendants from using the impugned mark and passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff’s. [Metro Brands Ltd. v. Metro Footwear, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4447<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court|<\/span> Delhi High Court grants ad-interim injunction in favour of ITC restraining defendants from using well-known mark ‘BUKHARA’<\/p>\n

In an application filed by ITC Ltd. under Order 39 Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the ‘BUKHARA’ trade mark, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from misusing the ‘BUKHARA’ trade mark. [ITC Ltd. v. Bukhara Inn, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8348<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court|<\/span> Patanjali restrained from calling other chyawaprash brands as ‘dhoka’; Delhi High Court grants interim relief to Dabur<\/p>\n

In an application filed by Dabur under Order 39, Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction against Patanjali for denigration, disparagement and defamation through their advertisement for chyawanprash, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that calling other chyawanprash as ‘dhoka’ or deceit constituted disparagement of chyawanprash as a class and was not permissible. [Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8347<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

WELL-KNOWN MARK<\/h3>\n

Delhi High Court|<\/span> Delhi High Court declares ‘HERMES’ and 3-D shape of its ‘Birkin’ bag as well-known trade marks<\/p>\n

While hearing a suit filed for trade mark infringement, passing-off, tarnishing and misappropriation of the plaintiff, Hermes’ Birkin bag, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, declared the three-dimensional shape of the Birkin bag as well as the trade mark ‘HERMES’ as a well-known trade mark under Section 11(6)<\/a> read with Section 2(1) (zg)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘Act’). [Hermes International v. Macky Lifestyle (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8581<\/a>] Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/p>\n