NOMINAL INDEX Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr., CS(COMM) 1155/2025 Gajulapalli Mallikarjuna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Revision Case No. 1840/2008 Swami Vidyanand v. Cristiana Amodei Chiarello & Ors., CS (COMM) No. 317/2025 Rao and Sapru Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Alok Kumar, IA-6542-2025 in Comm IP Suit No....
NOMINAL INDEX
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr., CS(COMM) 1155/2025
Gajulapalli Mallikarjuna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Revision Case No. 1840/2008
Swami Vidyanand v. Cristiana Amodei Chiarello & Ors., CS (COMM) No. 317/2025
Rao and Sapru Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Alok Kumar, IA-6542-2025 in Comm IP Suit No. 618/2025
Himalaya Wellness Company v. Greenland Trading Company, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1693
DAZN Limited & Anr. v. Back.methstreamer.com & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1694
TVS Motor Company v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
Cosco India Ltd. v. M/s B.K. Traders, CS (COMM) No. 1612/2019
Novo Nordisk & Anr. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, CS(COMM) 1308/2025
Saregama India Limited v. Black Madras Films & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1696
Marico Limited v. Minolta Natural Care, IA(L) 28667/2025 in Commercial IP (L) 28094/2025
Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd & Ors., Comm IP Suit No. 19/2006
Dabur India Ltd v. Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1710
Delhi Public School Society v. Delhi Public School International Bhiwadi, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1695
S Chand and Company Ltd. v. Kaushal Kumar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1696
CSJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Akash Kohli & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1697
Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1700
Federal Express Corporation v. Fedex Securities Private Ltd. & Ors., IA 820/2021 in Comm IPR Suit No. 1406/2019
Dabur India Limited v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd., APO/27/2022
Street One GMBH v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1704
Elsevier Ltd. & Ors. v. Alexandra Elbakyan & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1707
Konidala Pawan Kalyan v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Sunil Gavaskar v. Cricket Tak & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1698
Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1693
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd v. Mohalla Tech Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1691
HIGH COURT REPORTS
Patents Act, 1970
Madras High Court Orders Fresh Review of TVS Motor's Patent Plea For Scooter Frame Design
Case Title: TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
The Madras High Court set aside Patent Office's refusal of TVS Motor Company's patent application relating to a vehicle frame assembly. The Court found that Controller's analysis on lack of inventive step was inadequate and did not properly assess the claimed invention in light of the cited prior art. It observed that prior art relied upon did not disclose the specific structural arrangement claimed by TVS. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
After Dr Reddy's, Sun Pharma Commits To Not Selling Semaglutide In India Till March 2026
Case Title: Novo Nordisk & Anr. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1308/2025
The Delhi High Court recorded Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.'s assurance that it will not sell its semaglutide-based drug in India until March 20, 2026, when Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk's patent expires. The company also committed to exporting drug only to countries where Novo does not hold patent rights.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Order Allowing Dr. Reddy's To Manufacture And Export Semaglutide
Case Title: Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1700
In a patent infringement action relating to semaglutide, the Delhi High Court refused to grant interim relief in favour of Novo Nordisk. The Court observed that the defendants had raised substantial and credible challenges to the patent. It held that the matter required full trial and detailed examination of evidence. As a result, no stay on single bench order was granted at this stage.
Trade Marks Act, 1999
Delhi High Court Summons Woodland's MD and Senior Manager In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1155/2025
The Delhi High Court summoned the Managing Director and Senior Manager of Woodland to explain alleged non-disclosure of material correspondence in a trademark infringement suit. The Court found prima facie material suggesting concealment of relevant documents. It noted that such non-disclosure could affect the fairness of proceedings. Woodland was directed to deposit ₹30 lakh towards the value of seized goods.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Local Supplier From Using 'HIMALAYA' Mark For Ayurvedic Products
Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Greenland Trading Company
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1693
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining Greenland Trading Company from using the “HIMALAYA” mark for ayurvedic products. The Court found deceptive similarity between the competing marks. It also noted that the case involved triple identity of mark, goods and trade channel.
Case Title: Marico Limited v. Minolta Natural Care and Others
Case No.: IA(L) 28667/2025 in Commercial IP (L) 28094/2025
The Bombay High Court restrained Minolta Natural Care from using packaging alleged to be deceptively similar to Marico's Parachute Jasmine and Hair & Care products. The Court examined the overall trade dress and visual appearance of the rival products. It held that the similarities were likely to confuse consumers.
Case Title: Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Limited & Ors.
Case No.: Commercial IP Suit No. 19/2006
The Bombay High Court permanently restrained Jagpin Breweries from using the mark “COX 5000” for beer. The Court held that “5000” constituted the dominant feature of the well-known “HAYWARDS 5000” mark. It found prolonged and dishonest adoption by the defendants. Costs of ₹10 lakh were imposed for continued infringement.
Delhi High Court Stays Registration Of Mark Found Similar To Dabur's Pudin Hara
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1710
The Delhi High Court stayed the registration of the mark “Wellford Pudin Hara.” The Court found prima facie dishonest adoption and likelihood of confusion with Dabur's long-standing “Pudin Hara” mark. It observed that the competing marks were deceptively similar. Interim protection was therefore granted in Dabur's favour.
Case Title: Delhi Public School Society v. Delhi Public School International Bhiwadi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1695
The Delhi High Court restrained a school from using “Delhi Public School International,” “DPS,” and similar logos. The Court found that the marks were well-known and that their adoption by the defendants was dishonest. It held that such use was likely to mislead the public.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Marks Bearing Chandigarh Realty Firm's 'Elante' Trademark
Case Title: CSJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Akash Kohli & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1697
Allowing rectification petitions, the Delhi High Court directed removal of later “Elante” trademark registrations. The Court held that CSJ Infrastructure was the prior adopter and user of the mark. It found that the later registrations could not be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned marks were ordered to be removed.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Financial Companies From Infringing 'FEDEX' Trademark
Case Title: Federal Express Corporation v. Fedex Securities Private Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: IA 820/2021 in Comm IPR Suit No. 1406/2019
The Bombay High Court restrained the defendants from using “FEDEX” as part of their corporate names. The Court held that the adoption was dishonest and infringed a well-known trademark. It observed that such use could mislead consumers into believing an association with Federal Express.
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: APO/27/2022
The Calcutta High Court Division Bench restrained two advertisements challenged by Dabur India. The Court held that merely deleting the “42 ingredients” claim would not cure the overall disparaging effect. It found that the advertisements continued to denigrate Dabur's product. A complete injunction was therefore imposed.
Delhi High Court Revives Street One's Opposition To Registration Of the 'Street 9' Trademark
Case Title: Street One GMBH v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1704
The Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing Street One's opposition. The Court held that Street One's earlier registrations qualified as “earlier trademarks” under Section 11. It found that the Registrar had erred in law. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Copyright Act, 1957
Case Title: Gajulapalli Mallikarjuna Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No. 1840/2008
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging conviction for selling pirated audio cassettes. The Court upheld the findings of the trial court and appellate court, noting that the prosecution had established infringement under the Copyright Act. It observed that the evidence on record sufficiently proved unauthorised sale of copyrighted works. The revision was dismissed and the accused was directed to undergo the remaining sentence.
Case Title: Rao and Sapru Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Alok Kumar
Case No.: IA-6542-2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 618/2025
The Bombay High Court restrained the singer from exploiting ten songs created under agreements with Rao and Sapru Films. The Court examined the contractual terms and held that the songs were commissioned works. It found that copyright vested with the production house and not with the performer. Accordingly, the singer was restrained from monetising or exploiting the songs.
Delhi High Court Bars 28 Websites From Streaming DAZN's Tyson Fury–Oleksandr Usyk Rematch
Case Title: DAZN Limited & Anr. v. Back.methstreamer.com & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1694
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained 28 websites from illegally streaming DAZN's exclusive boxing broadcast. The Court noted that the defendants had failed to appear despite service. It held that the averments in the plaint therefore stood admitted. On this basis, a permanent injunction was granted against the rogue websites.
Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. Black Madras Films & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1696
The Delhi High Court considered a dispute concerning copyright in a song used in the film “Mask.” The Court held that Saregama had established ownership of copyright in the disputed song. It directed the producers to either remove the song from the film or deposit ₹30 lakh before releasing the film on OTT platforms. The directions were issued to safeguard Saregama's copyright interests.
Case Title: S Chand and Company Ltd. v. Kaushal Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1696
The Delhi High Court restrained online sellers from selling pirated books published by S Chand. The Court found that counterfeit copies of textbooks were being offered for sale on e-commerce platforms. It directed Flipkart to take down infringing listings and to act upon future complaints made by the publisher.
Case Title: Elsevier Ltd. & Ors. v. Alexandra Elbakyan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1707
The Delhi High Court extended earlier blocking orders to additional mirror and redirect websites associated with Sci-Hub. The Court noted that the newly identified websites continued to provide unauthorised access to copyrighted academic content.
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Mohalla Tech Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1691
The Delhi High Court refused to return Zee Entertainment's suit on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that allegations of copyright infringement within Delhi were sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The suit was permitted to proceed before Delhi High Court.
Personality Rights
Case Title: Konidala Pawan Kalyan v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court considered a complaint relating to AI-generated and impersonation content using the actor and Deputy Chief Minister's identity. The Court noted that the statutory mechanism under the IT Rules had been invoked. It directed social media platforms to act upon the complaint in accordance with the Rules.
Case Title: Sunil Gavaskar v. Cricket Tak & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1698
The Delhi High Court issued directions in a suit concerning unauthorised use of Sunil Gavaskar's name and likeness. The Court directed intermediaries to treat the suit as a complaint under the IT Rules. It required the platforms to decide the complaint upon receipt of specific URLs.
Case Title: Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1693
The Delhi High Court considered a plea relating to unauthorised use of Salman Khan's name and image. The Court directed intermediaries to process the complaint under the IT Rules framework. It also indicated that interim protection could operate against non-intermediary entities selling unauthorised merchandise.
Actor NTR Junior Moves Delhi High Court Seeking Protection Of His Personality Rights
Case Title: Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed social media and e-commerce platforms to act on the actor's complaint relating to unauthorised use of his identity. The Court reiterated that complaints must first be routed through intermediaries under the IT Rules.
DISTRICT COURT
Trademarks Act, 1999
Delhi Court Awards ₹1 Lakh To Cosco Against Kolkata Firm For Selling Counterfeit Footballs
Case Title: Cosco India Ltd. v. M/s B.K. Traders
Case No.: CS (COMM) No. 1612/2019
A Delhi Commercial Court restrained the defendants from using the “COSCO” mark and logo on sports goods. The Court held that Cosco India was the registered proprietor of the mark. It found that continued use by the defendants amounted to infringement and passing off.
Delhi Court Restrains Global Operators Using 'Yoga Alliance' Name; Orders Google, Meta to Block URLs
Case Title: Swami Vidyanand v. Cristiana Amodei Chiarello & Ors.
Case No.: CS (COMM) No. 317/2025
A Delhi Commercial Court granted interim protection to the “Yoga Alliance” marks against foreign operators. The Court restrained use of identical or deceptively similar domain names and online identifiers. It also directed platforms such as Google, Meta and GoDaddy to block access to infringing URLs in India.