In a suit filed by Bhanushali Studios Ltd. & Ors. (“Plaintiff”), the Bombay High Court has passed a John Doe order against parties that were circulating links to illegally download/ stream the movie, Janhit Mein Jaari. The movie was released on June 10, 2022 and on June 11, 2022, Plaintiff came to know that links to download/ stream the movie were being circulated on the messaging app, Telegram. The Plaintiff filed a police complaint regarding the links, after which some of the links were rendered inactive. Thereafter, Plaintiff found additional links on the Internet. The Plaintiff claimed availability of links to download/ stream the movie were causing loss of revenue to the Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff claimed to have been losing out on deals with OTT platforms due to such free availability of the movie. Telegram Messenger LLP, submitted that it has blocked such links from its app and will remove pirated links, as and when the Plaintiff informs it of such links. The court was of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. The court has also referred to its previous John Doe orders in cases where pirated copies of movies were circulating online and observed that such circulation of links, not only violates the copyright of the Plaintiff but also causes direct revenue loss. The court accepted Telegram’s statement and passed an ad-interim injection against other defendants, who were circulating the infringing links. Directions were issued to concerned police stations to assist the Plaintiff in restraining the defendants from circulating the infringing links. The Plaintiff was also given liberty of adding more such links as a part of the suit, if found subsequently. Bhanushali Studios Ltd. & Ors. v. Telegram Messenger LLP & Anr. COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 18595 OF 2022, Order dt. June 16, 2022.
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research VS.Bodhisatva Charitable Trust and Ors.
The Delhi High Court recently restrained Bodhisatva Charitable Trust and others (“Defendants”) operating health centres under the names Mayo Medical Centre, Mayo Institute of Medical Sciences, Mayo School of Nursing, and Mayo Hospital from using the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research’s (“Plaintiff”) trade mark MAYO in any manner, in relation to healthcare and medical education services. The Plaintiff is a non-profit American academic medical centre focused on healthcare, education and research. The Plaintiff contended that they became aware of the Defendants’ unauthorized adoption of the MAYO mark in 2014, and since then, it has issued legal notices and opposed the Defendants’ applications to register the MAYO mark at the Trade Marks Registry. It also relied on the testimonials from the Defendants’ websites stating that they were inspired by the founder of the Plaintiff, Dr. William Mayo, to set up their establishment. The Defendants challenged the validity of the suit on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction (since the Defendants’ facilities were located in Uttar Pradesh), delay, laches and acquiescence, as well as on the grounds that the trademark MAYO is a common word in India, and that the Plaintiff had failed to prove its goodwill and reputation in India. The court observed that ‘hospitals’ and ‘medical education’ are allied and cognate to ‘’medical journals and periodicals’, the goods covered by the Plaintiff’s registration in India. Accordingly, the Defendants’ use of the MAYO mark amounts to trade mark infringement. The court also noted that the use of the MAYO mark in relation to healthcare services is completely arbitrary and distinctive. Lastly, the Court observed that the fields of healthcare and medicine have an international character, and since the Plaintiff was able to prove its global reputation, it was evident that the Defendants’ adoption of the MAYO mark was with mala fide intentions. Accordingly, the court restrained the Defendants from using the MAYO mark till the disposal of the suit. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. Bodhisatva Charitable Trust and Ors. [CS(COMM) 920/2022], Judgment dt. May 29, 2023.
Appeal challenging rejection order of a Patent
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and Department of Veterans Affairs (“Appellants”) filed an application for grant of a patent for the invention titled “polynucleotide library for sequencing, analyzing and utilizing single samples”. The application was examined and objected to under Sections 2 (1) (ja), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3(i), 3(j), and Sub-Sections 4 & 5 of Section 10 of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”). The Appellants subsequently filed 17 amended claims to overcome the objection. The application, including the amended claims, was examined, and subsequently refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Chennai (“Controller”) on the grounds that the disclosure in the amended claims as well is not clear and sufficient. The Appellants, in their appeal, highlighted deficiencies in the Controller’s treatment of objections. The Appellants also argued that it was on the Controller to show how the 69 working examples did not satisfy the requirements of Section 10(4) of the Act. The Controller, in its response, submitted that the Appellants had couched the patent claims in very broad terms and used expressions such as “comprises”, which, as per the Patent Office, offered numerous possible permutations and combinations that may or may not show the intended results since they had not been amply disclosed as per Section 10(4) or 10(5) of the Act. The Court perused the order and ruled that the Controller’s order lacked specificity in addressing the insufficiency of disclosure. It did not pinpoint which claims were unsupported or insufficiently supported within the context of the complete specification and the 69 working examples provided. The Court, consequently, set aside the refusal order and remanded it back under specific terms: This direction aimed to address the lack of specificity in the rejection and to provide a fair opportunity for reconsideration without pre-determined biases.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Gleck Pharma (OPC) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court, recently, granted an ad interim temporary injunction in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (“Applicant/Plaintiff”), restraining Gleck Pharma Pvt Ltd. & Ors. (“Respondents/Defendants”) from using the impugned trademark XIGAMET in relation to medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations as it is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark ZITA-MET. The Plaintiff argued that it is the registered proprietor of the trademark ZITA-MET and ZITA-MET formative marks which is being used in relation to an anti-diabetic drug. It was argued by the Plaintiff that the Defendant’s use of the impugned trademark XIGAMET amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff’s mark owing to its phonetic, aural and visual similarity with the Plaintiff’s mark. Defendant, on the other hand, argued that the suffix MET is commonly used in the industry, across the globe. Furthermore, the Defendant argued that there is another registered trademark which is similar to the Plaintiff’s mark and is operating in the same market without causing confusion to the consumers and therefore, the objection raised by the Plaintiff with regards to the confusion amongst the consumers does not sustain. The main issue for consideration before the court was whether the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s mark. The court said that a stricter approach has to be adopted while applying the test of deceptive similarity in the case of medicinal products since any confusion in this regard may have disastrous effect on the health of the consumers. The court opined that a lesser quantum of proof of confusion is required in the case of medicinal products and the court is not to speculate regarding the probability of confusion between the marks. Accordingly, the court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff.
Honeywell International Inc. v. The Controller of Patents
Recently, the Delhi High Court clarified the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the amendment of applications and specifications in the case of Honeywell International Inc. (“Appellant”) v. The Controller of Patents (“Controller”). The court, in this case, allowed the Appellant to amend the claims of its patent application for “Organic Fluorescent Compositions”, stating that the amendments fell within the scope of the original claims. In this case, a First Examination Report (FER) was issued by the Controller, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability. The Appellant responded to the FER by amending and deleting a few of the claims. Subsequently, a hearing notice was issued with additional objections. The Appellant attended the hearing, and sough to further amend its patent application, changing the claims from a ‘composition comprising a compound’ to just ‘the compound’ itself. The Controller rejected the application, stating that the amended claims were beyond the scope of the originally filed claims. The Appellant argued that the original specification, prior to the amendment, clearly described both the composition as well as the compound, and the Controller’s conclusion that the amendments fell outside the scope of the originally filed claims was misguided. As per the Appellant, it is settled law that claims, and complete specifications have to be put together as a whole and cannot be dichotomized. The Controller, on the other hand, argued that the amendment was beyond the scope of the originally filed claims because the composition of a compound is not the same as the compound itself. The court analysed the original and amended claims and found that the amendments were within the scope of the original claims. The court emphasized that, while interpreting “scope of a claim” in relation to the amendment of a patent application, the claims have to be read along with the complete specifications together and as a whole. The court concluded that the Controller’s rejection was incorrect, as the amendments did not introduce new matters and were merely a narrowing down of the original claims. Therefore, the court set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and remanded the application back for fresh examination with the amendment, within three months. Honeywell International Inc. v. The Controller of Patents, [C.A. (Comm. IPD- PAT) 396/2022, judgment dt. May 21, 2024]
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v. Gautam Tank and others
Citation: (T)OP(TM)/532/2023 The Hon’ble Madras High Court has, in a rectification petition, filed by the petitioner under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) to expunge the trade mark SOLIDARE in Class 9 registered in the name of, Salahudeen Abdhullatheef, from the records of the Register of Trade Marks, held that a counter claim cannot be filed in response to such a rectification petition under the Act. The respondent, in response to the rectification petition, filed a counter affidavit and counter claim seeking removal of the petitioner’s trademark, SOLIDAIRE, subject of Registration No. 1574746 in the same class. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of such a counter claim and argued that neither the Act nor the rules framed under the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules of the Madras High Court, 2022, provides for a counterclaim in response to rectification petition. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Court has wide powers under Sections 57(3) and 57(4) of the Act to including powers to decide any question that it may be necessary or expedient to decide, in particular, powers to rectify the petitioner’s trademark through a counterclaim. The Court, while, agreeing with the petitioner’s argument that, the Act does not provide for counter claims, treated the counter claim as a fresh and separate petition and directed the learned Registrar of Trade Marks to assign a separate original petition number to the counter claim.
Federated Hermes Ltd. Vs. John Deo & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has, in a suit filed by Federated Hermes Ltd. (“Plaintiff”), permanently restrained unknown defendants involved in unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s registered Federated Hermes and Federated Hermes Device marks (“Federated Hermes Marks”). The Plaintiff contended that the unknown defendants were operating fraudulent investment schemes through WhatsApp groups, their websites and mobile application FHT, and claim to represent the Plaintiff and impersonate one, Mr. Pankaj Tiberwal, a well-known investment professional who has no connection with the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, these unknown defendants were using WhatsApp groups to provide fraudulent stock trading and investment advice, purporting to offer live classes that promise high returns. Furthermore, the Plaintiff contended that victims were lured in, through these fraudulent websites and apps, to deposit sums of money into purported VIP Accounts falsely claiming to be associated with the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleged that it has received various emails and messages from individuals informing the Plaintiff about these fraudulent schemes. The Hon’ble Court noted that the unknown defendants, by way of their fraudulent activities, have wilfully and deliberately misappropriated Plaintiff’s Federated Hermes Marks to mislead and deceive users into believing that these services are associated with the Plaintiff and induced them to make payments and subscribe to their services under this false pretext. The Hon’ble Court further noted that the contesting defendants are unknown entities and have failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit or put forth any defence on merits, despite having suffered an ad-interim injunction vide order dated May 28, 2024. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court decreed the suit in the Plaintiff’s favour granting a permanent injunction against the unknown defendants and restraining them from using the Federated Hermes Marks. Click here to read the judgement copy
Updates from Courts & Registry
All Posts Updates from Courts & Registry Rica S.p.A v. Jatin Hemendrabhai Vora trading as M/s Parul Marketing & Anr., Delhi High Court d May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, the Delhi High Court granted RICA S.p.A. (“Plaintiff”), the prior registrant and user of the mark RICA in relation… Read More Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. v. Mr. Ishant Kashiwal trading as The Hogwarts Kafe & Ors. [CS May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, the Delhi High Court granted Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant, Ishant Kashiwal,… Read More Pidilite Industrial Ltd. vs. Saathi Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. COMM(IP) 19160/2021, dt. 22/09/2 May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from using the marks SSH/SH, MARINE, D3/D3-GOLD… Read More Cerveceria Modelo Demexico & Ors. V. The Origin Ventures & Ors.. CS(COMM) 479/2021, Order May 14, 2026/No Comments In a suit filed by Cerveceria Modelo Demexico S De R L De Cv & Ors. (“Plaintiffs”), the Delhi High Court restrained the defendants from using… Read More Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Filmyclub.wapkiz.com & Ors., CS(COMM) 518/2021, Order Dt. O May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently Star India Pvt. Ltd. (“#Star”) successfully enforced its rights in the Delhi High Court in connection with the #telecast of the… Read More Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd vs. Juzer Mukhiya Proprietor of Franco Remedies & Anr [Co May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) restricting Juzer Mukhiya, proprietor of Franco… Read More Order dt. October 12, 2021 in the case of Arya Book Depot & Ors. v. Edurev Solutions Pvt. Ltd. May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, Arya Book Depot, being the owner of the rights in the original literary work titled “BULL’S EYE-Business Studies Mastering… Read More S.S Appliances Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. S.N. Raju, Delhi High Court, CS(COMM) 502/2021 dt. 8.10.2021 May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, S.S. Appliances Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (“Plaintiffs”) sued S.N. Raju (“Defendant”), seeking to restrain the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiffs’ trademark, KENT… Read More Sabyasachi Calcutta LLP v. Mr. Ankit Keyal, proprietor of Asiana Couture & Ors. CS(Comm) 553/20 May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, the well-known designer, Sabyasachi Mukherjee, moved court for an order of injunction in a design piracy suit restraining the… Read More M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S T.R.N. Corporation Through Its Proprietor Sh. Deepak Nime May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, in a suit filed by Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt Ltd. (“Plaintiff”), the Delhi High Court restrained the defendants from… Read More Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited, CS(COMM) NO. 340/2021 May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited (“Plaintiff”) filed a suit at the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining… Read More Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Sumit Pandey and Ors., CS (COMM) 240/21, Order dated November May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) successfully enforced its rights in the Delhi High Court against entities using infringing domain… Read More Khandelwal Edible Oils Limited v. Landsmill Agro Private Limited [CS(COMM) No. 568/2021] Order dt. 1 May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Khandelwal Edible Oils Ltd. (‘Plaintiff”) against Landsmill Agro Pvt. Ltd. (“Defendant”). The… Read More Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Guddu Ansari & Ors. [CS(COMM) No. 59 May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. successfully enforced their rights in the Delhi High Court against a defendant who was… Read More Can a machine or Artificial Intelligence (AI) claim copyright in the work created by it? May 14, 2026/No Comments Can a machine or Artificial Intelligence (AI) claim copyright in the work created by it? This question has, off late,… Read More Advertising Standards Council of India Releases Guidelines on Advertisements for Virtual Digital Ass May 14, 2026/No Comments Recognizing the increasing popularity of virtual digital assets (“VDA”), pertinently, cryptocurrencies and NFTs, in India and the associated risks, on… Read More Hermès International, et al. v. Mason Rothschild May 14, 2026/No Comments In continuance of the METABIRKINS saga, Hermès has now doubled down on its claims by amending the complaint filed by… Read More QATAR FOOTBALL WORLD CUP THE GOAL OF TRADEMARK May 14, 2026/No Comments With the Qatar FIFA World Cup scheduled for later this year, an array of footballing superstars will be on show… Read More Microsoft Corporation & Anr. V. Vacation Rental Services Private Limited & Ors. May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, Microsoft instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction against Vacation Rental Services Private Limited & Ors. (“VRS”), that were using… Read More DELHI HIGH COURT SETS PATH FOR OPPOSITIONS FILED, AND REGISTRATIONS ISSUED, DURING THE PANDEMIC May 14, 2026/No Comments On March 21, 2022, J. Prathiba Singh of the Delhi High Court issued directions to the Controller General of Patents,… Read More FLAME V. KATY PERRY May 14, 2026/No Comments In a recent development, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favour of popstar Katy Perry in a case pertaining… Read More Metaverse Fashion Week May 14, 2026/No Comments The eagerly anticipated first ever Metaverse Fashion Week (“MVFW”), hosted by Decentraland, took place late last month. The MVFW spanned… Read More Soothe Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. V. Dabur India Ltd. May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, the Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction to Soothe Healthcare Pvt. Ltd (‘Plaintiff’) against Dabur India Ltd. (‘Defendant’)… Read More Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors v. Angle Bio Pharma & Ors. May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, the Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction to Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors… Read More MODICARE LIMITED vs REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, Modicare Limited (“Appellant”) appealed an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing to register its application for… Read More MODICARE LIMITED vs REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS May 14, 2026/No Comments Recently, Modicare Limited (“Appellant”) appealed an order passed by the Registrar of
Exotic Mile Vs. Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd.
Recently, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, while dismissing an appeal, upheld an order passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court to restrain Exotic Mile (“Appellant”) from manufacturing and marketing audio gadgets under its registered trade mark BOULT and its formative variants, owing to its deceptive similarity to the BOAT-formative marks registered in favour of Imagine Marketing Private Limited. (“Respondent”). At the outset, the Respondent had initiated a civil suit against the Appellant in the Delhi High Court, pursuant to which, the Court granted an ad interim injunction, and passed an order restraining the Appellant from using BOULT-formative marks. The Respondent was able to establish that the prevalence of goods under the BOULT-formative marks were causing actual instances of confusion among consumers, who on account of the phonetic similarities between the rival marks, were led to believe that the Appellant’s goods were associated with the Respondent. The Court, subsequently, passed an order restricting not only use of the BOULT-formative marks, but also use of a tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” and the name “BOULT BASS BUD” for one of the products. Aggrieved by the order, the Appellant preferred the present appeal. The Court, however, set aside the injunction against the tagline stating that the Respondent had not requested this relief. Nonetheless, the Court upheld the injunction against the BOULT and BOULT AUDIO marks, considering that the Respondent had prior use and goodwill, and that the rival marks were phonetically similar. While the Appellant argued that phonetic similarities will have minimal effect on the consumer choices given that most sales for both the parties are through online channels, the Court held that the possibility of likelihood of confusion will still be prevalent if the consumer is unable to recollect the exact name of the product which they want to purchase online. The aspect of phonetic similarity may be of somewhat lesser significance when the products are sold online but it cannot be said to be altogether irrelevant. Further, while the rival products are largely sold online, neither party denied that their products are sold in brick-and-mortar stores as well. Exotic Mile Vs. Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd. [FAO(OS) (COMM) 20/2020], pronounced on September 15, 2025 Read the judgement copy here.
Nokia vs Asus, Acer & Hisense
Background A confidentiality club was first formed in India by the Delhi High Court in August, 2012, in a matter involving breach of confidentiality, and illegal use of trade secrets [MVF 3 APS & Ors. vs. M. Sivasamy and Ors]. Inspired by similar practices in UK courts, confidentiality clubs have been constituted in India aimed at protecting sensitive information, typically in IP disputes. The purpose of the confidentiality club is to offer a neutral and controlled way of providing sensitive information (such as trade secrets, licensing agreements, or technical data) to allow for fair litigation. Later added as part of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, it has now become a routine way to deal with sensitive documents in patent litigations. Clarity provided by DHC In an order dated 22nd September 2025, in the ongoing patent dispute between Nokia and companies Asus, Acer, and Hisense, the DHC underscored the key points on how confidential information is to be handled in cases involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). This ruling encourages greater transparency and fairness in India’s SEP litigation by addressing informational imbalances that disadvantage defendants during negotiation of FRAND terms. Mandatory, inclusive access to confidentiality clubs and full FRAND agreement disclosures, enable robust defence and potentially cut dispute time, costs and presents a better opportunity for defendants. Nokia vs Asus, Acer & Hisense [CS(COMM) 643/2025 & I.A. 15135/2025 + CS(COMM) 644/2025 & I.A. 15143/2025 + CS(COMM) 645/2025, I.A. 15150/2025 & I.A. 21050/2025] Read the judgement here.