Synthetic Moulders Vs Samperit Aktiengesellschaft

In 1979, Austrian company Samperit Aktiengesellschaft (respondent/plaintiff), holder of registered Indian trademark "Matador" for combs manufactured in Austria, sued Indian manufacturer Synthetic Moulders (appellant/defendant) for using the identical mark "Matador" on combs produced locally since 1966. 

The trial court granted temporary injunction against the defendant restraining use of the mark. On appeal, the Delhi High Court set aside the interim injunction, holding that while the plaintiff had exclusive rights under Section 28 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, grant of temporary injunction is equitable and governed by Order 39 CPC principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury rather than automatically following statutory rights. The Court found no real deception or confusion likely due to the common, low-value nature of combs where purchase decisions depend on look and feel rather than brand name, the plaintiff's products being banned from import since 1954 and virtually unknown in India, potential total damage to defendant's established business if injunction continued, absence of substantial damage to plaintiff from continued use, and unexplained delay by plaintiff in challenging the use from 1966 until 1978. The observations were limited to interim stage and not to bind the final decision on merits for permanent injunction.

Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case

Registration under Section 28 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 grants exclusive right to use the registered trademark, but temporary injunction is an equitable remedy governed by Order 39 CPC principles (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) and not automatically granted merely on proof of statutory rights. (Para 1–2)

Balance of convenience for temporary injunction requires weighing relative damage if injunction is granted but plaintiff ultimately fails (potential total loss to defendant using mark since long) against damage to plaintiff if refused (minimal where plaintiff's goods banned from import since 1954 and unknown in market), per Kerley on Trade Marks (10th Ed., para 15.65). (Para 3)

For common, low-value, everyday articles like combs purchased based on look, feel and quality rather than brand name, deception or confusion is unlikely where foreign plaintiff's mark is virtually unknown in India due to import ban, unlike special/high-value goods from renowned makers. (Para 4)

Unexplained long delay by plaintiff in challenging defendant's use (from 1966 to 1978) weakens case for interim relief. (Para 5)

Observations on balance of convenience and delay for temporary injunction do not influence final decision on permanent injunction in the pending suit on merits. (Para 6)

Case Title: Synthetic Moulders Vs Samperit Aktiengesellschaft:22.10.1979:First Appeal No. 66 of 1979:(1979) 10 DEL CK 0025; (1980) RLR 263:Delhi High Court:V.S. Deshpande

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Synthetic Moulders Vs Samperit Aktiengesellschaft

In 1979, Austrian company Samperit Aktiengesellschaft (respondent/plaintiff), holder of registered Indian trademark "Matador" for combs manufactured in Austria, sued Indian manufacturer Synthetic Moulders (appellant/defendant) for using the identical mark "Matador" on combs produced locally since 1966. The trial court granted temporary injunction against the defendant restraining use of the mark. On appeal, the Delhi High Court set aside the interim injunction, holding that while the plaintiff had exclusive rights under Section 28 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, grant of temporary injunction is equitable and governed by Order 39 CPC principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury rather than automatically following statutory rights. The Court found no real deception or confusion likely due to the common, low-value nature of combs where purchase decisions depend on look and feel rather than brand name, the plaintiff's products being banned from import since 1954 and virtually unknown in India, potential total damage to defendant's established business if injunction continued, absence of substantial damage to plaintiff from continued use, and unexplained delay by plaintiff in challenging the use from 1966 until 1978. The observations were limited to interim stage and not to bind the final decision on merits for permanent injunction.

Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case

Registration under Section 28 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 grants exclusive right to use the registered trademark, but temporary injunction is an equitable remedy governed by Order 39 CPC principles (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) and not automatically granted merely on proof of statutory rights. (Para 1–2)

Balance of convenience for temporary injunction requires weighing relative damage if injunction is granted but plaintiff ultimately fails (potential total loss to defendant using mark since long) against damage to plaintiff if refused (minimal where plaintiff's goods banned from import since 1954 and unknown in market), per Kerley on Trade Marks (10th Ed., para 15.65). (Para 3)

For common, low-value, everyday articles like combs purchased based on look, feel and quality rather than brand name, deception or confusion is unlikely where foreign plaintiff's mark is virtually unknown in India due to import ban, unlike special/high-value goods from renowned makers. (Para 4)

Unexplained long delay by plaintiff in challenging defendant's use (from 1966 to 1978) weakens case for interim relief. (Para 5)

Observations on balance of convenience and delay for temporary injunction do not influence final decision on permanent injunction in the pending suit on merits. (Para 6)

Case Title: Synthetic Moulders Vs Samperit Aktiengesellschaft

Order date: October 22, 1979

Case Number: First Appeal No. 66 of 1979

Neutral Citation: (1979) 10 DEL CK 0025; (1980) RLR 263

Name of court: Delhi High Court

Name of Judge: V.S. Deshpande, C.J. (Single Bench, though appeal heard as full appeal)

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao Vs Ashok Kumar

Actor Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao Jr (popularly known as Jr NTR), a renowned Telugu film star with decades of successful career, multiple awards, massive public goodwill, trademark registrations in names like 'NTR', 'Jr. NTR' and 'Man of Masses', and high brand value, filed a commercial suit in Delhi High Court against John Doe and various online sellers, e-commerce platforms and intermediaries alleging unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality and publicity rights through sale of infringing merchandise (T-shirts, posters, mugs etc.) bearing his name, image, likeness and sobriquets, as well as potential AI-generated content, causing confusion, deception and irreparable harm.

The Court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, Section 80 notice to proforma defendants, and allowed additional documents; registered the suit, issued summons to infringing defendants, and passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 22 December 2025 restraining all defendants (including unknown persons) from violating the plaintiff's personality rights by any direct/indirect commercial use of his name, styles, photographs or creating/sharing any products/merchandise via any technology (including AI and GIFs) without consent, directing specific takedowns of listed infringing URLs within 72 hours, restraining e-commerce platforms from facilitating such sales, permitting Google to reindex non-removed URLs on non-compliance, and directing intermediaries to treat additional URLs as complaints under IT Rules 2021; 

The Court also called for replies from major platforms on their complaint-handling policies regarding trademark/copyright/image misuse.

Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case

A celebrity's name, image, likeness and associated attributes (including registered trademarks and well-known sobriquets like 'Man of Masses') that have acquired substantial goodwill and distinctiveness through professional achievements, awards and brand endorsements constitute protectable personality and publicity rights, granting proprietary control against unauthorised commercial exploitation by third parties, particularly for merchandise sales. (Para 26–30)

Reliance: D.M. Entertainment Vs. Baby Gift House, MANU/DE/2043/2010; Anil Kapoor Vs. Simply Life India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914 (Para 38–40); Jaikishan Kaku Bhai Sarf Alias Jackie Shroff Vs. The Peppy Store and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664.

Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are satisfied where continued availability of infringing merchandise exploiting a celebrity's personality rights causes deception, economic loss and reputational harm, warranting ex-parte ad-interim injunction and John Doe directions. (Para 31–32)

Case Title: Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao Vs Ashok Kumar: 22.12.2025: CS(COMM) 1305/2025: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Kenvue Brands LLC Vs RSPL Limited

Kenvue Brands LLC and its Indian affiliate JNTL Consumer Health Pvt. Ltd. filed a patent infringement suit against RSPL Limited, alleging that the defendant's Pro-ease Go sanitary napkin variants infringe their patent IN 339964 valid until 2035 for Stayfree products, seeking permanent injunction and damages under the Patents Act 1970 after learning of the products in February 2025 with widespread sales by October 2025.

Procedurally, the court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation citing urgency for interim relief, allowed leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC to add claims and parties, registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons accepted by defendant, directed filing of written statement within 30 days with admission/denial affidavits, permitted additional documents, and accepted notice on the interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Plaintiffs submitted arguments on infringement supported by a technical expert affidavit mapping claims, while defendant countered with no prima facie infringement, balance of convenience in their favor due to investments, patent vulnerability to invalidity challenges for lack of novelty and inventive step, adoption of only public domain features, and doubts on the expert affidavit's genuineness as it was signed the same day as the plaint on December 12, 2025.

The court reasoned that the cause of action arose in February 2025 yet suit was filed late, and the same-day execution of plaint and expert affidavit raised serious authenticity doubts on infringement claims, thus requiring further consideration after defendant's reply rather than granting immediate ad-interim relief, directing reply within three weeks, rejoinder within one week, and listing the application for hearing on January 19, 2026.

Law Point:

An expert affidavit signed and executed on the same date as the plaint raises serious doubts about its authenticity and the averments therein for establishing patent infringement, warranting opportunity for defendant to file reply before considering ad-interim injunction (Para 21).

Case Title: Kenvue Brands LLC Vs RSPL Limited:22.12.2025:CS(COMM) 1363/2025:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

HT Media Ltd Vs . Pooja Sharma

HT Media Ltd, owner of well-known trademarks like HINDUSTAN TIMES, HT, and associated logos since 1924 with extensive media presence, filed a 2022 suit against Pooja Sharma and unknown defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition through fraudulent domains such as htmediajobs.com imitating their official site and content to deceive the public into paying for fake job opportunities, advertisements, or services into unrelated bank accounts. As part of a batch of suits tackling cyber fraud via anonymous infringing domains with privacy protections, proceedings from 2022-2025 included ex-parte interim injunctions under I.A. 612/2022 suspending domains and extended, impleading DNRs like GoDaddy, registries like Verisign, entities including ICANN, MeitY, DoT, MHA, RBI, NPCI, IBA, NIXI, Delhi Police, Bharti Airtel; hearings gathered affidavits, investigation status reports with FIRs and chargesheets, CEIB SOPs in May 2024 for bank-LEA collaboration, RBI's December 2024 beneficiary name lookup mandate, grievance officer designations, and consultations; judgment reserved May 31, 2025. The court reasoned that domain names embody the online identity of businesses requiring protection from goodwill dilution and consumer fraud; dissected the ICANN framework imposing verification, anti-abuse, disclosure, and compliance obligations on DNRs and registries; highlighted gaps in KYC processes, default privacy aiding anonymity and fraud, due diligence shortcomings endangering IT Act s.79 safe harbour, and the need to balance privacy under DPDP Act with third-party rights; underscored dynamic/dynamic+ injunctions against rogue domains and non-compliance meriting IT Act s.69A blocks due to public order threats from pervasive scams; addressed payment discrepancies and enforcement aids. The court issued directives to DNRs/registries for opt-in privacy only, 72-hour disclosures, permanent blocks, prohibitions on alternatives for well-known marks, local grievance officers, e-KYC verifications, TMCH implementation, data sharing; to government for unified frameworks, nodal repositories, TMCH facilitation, lists of well-known marks/sites; parameters for dynamic+ injunctions covering variations; to banks for name lookup and SOP adherence; granted summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC/IPD Rules r.27 with permanent/dynamic+ injunction restraining infringement/passing off, compulsory permanent blocks/takedowns by registries/DNRs/DoT/MeitY/ISPs/search engines, domain transfers upon payment, complete disclosures, no damages sought, disposing applications.

- Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Registry Operators are obligated under ICANN agreements to verify registrant details, investigate inaccuracies/abuse, provide WHOIS/RDDS access, comply with court orders, and prevent registrations violating third-party rights, with failure risking termination or safe harbour loss under IT Act s.79: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Paras 261-262, 272.

- Privacy protect shall not be default/opt-out; offered only on opt-in as paid value-added service separate from registration package: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(i).

- DNRs must disclose specified registrant/admin/tech/payment/hosting details to legitimate interests/LEAs/courts within 72 hours under Intermediary Guidelines 2021: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(ii).

- Infringing domains adjudged illegitimate shall be permanently blocked by registries/DNRs, not re-registered or pooled: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(iii).

- For well-known/invented marks with reputation in India, injunctions bar alternative domains/extensions/mirrors/alphanumerics: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(iv).

- DNRs shall not promote/suggest alternatives to injuncted domains, else lose safe harbour: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(v).

- For descriptive/generic marks, injunctions specific but extendable via Joint Registrar intervention: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(vi).

- Injuncted domains transferable to TM owner on usual charges: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(vii).

- No promotion/optimization services by search engines/DNRs to infringing domains: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(viii).

- All DNRs in India to appoint local Grievance Officers within one month, publish contacts: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(ix).

- Email service on Grievance Officer sufficient; insistence on MLAT/other modes deems non-compliant: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(x).

- Courts may direct MeitY/DoT to block non-compliant DNRs/services under IT Act s.69A for public order: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Paras 277(A)(xi), (B)(c).

- Registries to implement Trademark Clearinghouse for all brands: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(xii).

- DNRs in India to verify registrant details via e-KYC per CERT-In circular, periodically: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(xiii).

- DNRs under NIXI to provide registration data monthly: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(xiv).

- Government to consult on NIXI-like framework, nominate nodal data repository, enable TMCH, publish well-known marks/websites list: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(B), (xvi).

- Dynamic+ injunction applies to exact marks, prefix/suffix/alphanumeric variations; legitimate registrants may seek court order: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(C)(xvii).

- Banks to mandatorily implement Beneficiary Name Lookup per RBI circular and abide by CEIB SOP for LEAs: HT Media Ltd v. Pooja Sharma & Ors., CS(COMM) 26/2022 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(D).

Case Title: HT Media Ltd Vs . Pooja Sharma & Ors.  

Order date: 24th December, 2025  

Case Number: CS (COMM) 26/2022 & I.As.612/2022  

Neutral Citation: N/A  

Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

Name of Judge: Justice Prathiba M. Singh  

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]  

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. Vs. www.xiaomi-india.xyz

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, Indian arm of Chinese multinational with trademarks XIAOMI, MI, REDMI, POCO since 2010 and billions in sales, along with Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd, filed 2019 suit against unknown defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution via fraudulent domains like xiaomi-india.xyz copying their websites, logos, content to scam public for jobs, dealerships, payments into unrelated accounts. As batch matter on domain-based cyber frauds, proceedings 2019-2025 involved ex-parte injunctions in December 2019 suspending domains and extended, impleading DNRs like GoDaddy, registries Verisign, entities ICANN, MeitY, DoT, MHA, RBI, NPCI, IBA, NIXI, Delhi Police; multiple hearings with affidavits, status reports on investigations including FIRs/chargesheets, CEIB SOPs May 2024 for bank-LEA aid, RBI December 2024 mandating beneficiary name lookup, grievance officer appointments, stakeholder meetings; reserved May 31, 2025. Court reasoned domain names as online business essence require safeguards against goodwill erosion and deception; analyzed ICANN ecosystem duties on DNRs/registries for verification, abuse prevention, disclosure, order adherence; identified lapses in KYC, default privacy enabling anonymity/fraud, intermediary diligence failures risking IT Act s.79 safe harbour, privacy balanced with rights under DPDP Act; stressed dynamic/dynamic+ injunctions for rogue sites, non-compliance justifying IT Act s.69A blocks for public order disruptions from mass frauds; addressed payment mismatches, LEA cooperation. Issued directions to DNRs/registries for opt-in privacy, 72-hour disclosures, permanent blocks, no alternatives for well-known marks, India grievance officers, e-KYC, TMCH, monthly data to NIXI; government for NIXI-like framework, nodal repository, TMCH enablement, well-known marks/websites list; dynamic+ criteria for variations; banks for name lookup/SOP compliance; granted summary adjudication under Order XIII-A CPC/IPD Rules r.27 with permanent/dynamic+ injunction restraining use/passing off, mandatory permanent blocks/takedowns by registries/DNRs/DoT/MeitY/ISPs/social media/search engines, domain transfers to plaintiffs on fees, full disclosures, no damages as not claimed, disposed pending IAs including impleadment.

- Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Registry Operators are obligated under ICANN agreements to verify registrant details, investigate inaccuracies/abuse, provide WHOIS/RDDS access, comply with court orders, and prevent registrations violating third-party rights, with failure risking termination or safe harbour loss under IT Act s.79: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Paras 261-262, 272.

- Privacy protect shall not be default/opt-out; offered only on opt-in as paid value-added service separate from registration package: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(i).

- DNRs must disclose specified registrant/admin/tech/payment/hosting details to legitimate interests/LEAs/courts within 72 hours under Intermediary Guidelines 2021: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(ii).

- Infringing domains adjudged illegitimate shall be permanently blocked by registries/DNRs, not re-registered or pooled: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(iii).

- For well-known/invented marks with reputation in India, injunctions bar alternative domains/extensions/mirrors/alphanumerics: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(iv).

- DNRs shall not promote/suggest alternatives to injuncted domains, else lose safe harbour: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(v).

- For descriptive/generic marks, injunctions specific but extendable via Joint Registrar intervention: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(vi).

- Injuncted domains transferable to TM owner on usual charges: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(vii).

- No promotion/optimization services by search engines/DNRs to infringing domains: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(viii).

- All DNRs in India to appoint local Grievance Officers within one month, publish contacts: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(ix).

- Email service on Grievance Officer sufficient; insistence on MLAT/other modes deems non-compliant: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(x).

- Courts may direct MeitY/DoT to block non-compliant DNRs/services under IT Act s.69A for public order: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Paras 283(A)(xi), (B)(c).

- Registries to implement Trademark Clearinghouse for all brands: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(xii).

- DNRs in India to verify registrant details via e-KYC per CERT-In circular, periodically: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(xiii).

- DNRs under NIXI to provide registration data monthly: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(A)(xiv).

- Government to consult on NIXI-like framework, nominate nodal data repository, enable TMCH, publish well-known marks/websites list: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(B), (xvi).

- Dynamic+ injunction applies to exact marks, prefix/suffix/alphanumeric variations; legitimate registrants may seek court order: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(C)(xvii).

- Banks to mandatorily implement Beneficiary Name Lookup per RBI circular and abide by CEIB SOP for LEAs: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. v. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors., CS(COMM) 700/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 283(D).

Case Title: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Anr. Vs. www.xiaomi-india.xyz & Ors.  

Order date: 24th December, 2025  

Case Number: CS (COMM) 700/2019 & I.A. 17945/2019  

Neutral Citation: N/A  

Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

Name of Judge: Justice Prathiba M. Singh  

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]  

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Tata Sky Limited Vs S G Enterprises

Tata Sky Limited, a joint venture between Tata Sons and 21st Century Fox providing DTH services under the well-known trademark "TATA SKY" since 2006 with over 17 million subscribers, filed this 2019 suit against unknown defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition via fraudulent domains like tataskysales.com and tataskychennai.com mimicking their site, logo, and content to defraud public by soliciting payments for connections, recharges, jobs into unrelated accounts. As part of a batch of suits addressing cyber fraud through infringing domains registered anonymously with privacy shields, proceedings from 2019-2025 involved ex-parte interim injunctions in January 2019 suspending domains and extended, impleading DNRs like GoDaddy, registries like Verisign and Registry Services LLC, entities including ICANN, MeitY, DoT, MHA, RBI, NPCI, IBA, NIXI, Delhi Police; hearings elicited affidavits, status reports on investigations with FIRs and chargesheets in some cases, CEIB SOPs for bank-LEA cooperation in May 2024, RBI mandating beneficiary name lookup in December 2024, grievance officer appointments, stakeholder consultations; judgment reserved May 31, 2025. The court reasoned domain names constitute the online soul of businesses necessitating safeguards against goodwill erosion and deception; examined ICANN-governed domain system imposing verification, anti-abuse, disclosure, compliance duties on DNRs/registries; noted deficiencies in KYC, default privacy facilitating fraud, due diligence lapses risking IT Act s.79 safe harbour, privacy balanced with rights under DPDP Act; highlighted dynamic/dynamic+ injunctions for rogue sites, non-compliance justifying IT Act s.69A blocks for public order impacts from widespread frauds; addressed payment mismatches and LEA aid. The court issued directions to DNRs/registries for opt-in privacy, 72-hour disclosures, permanent blocks, no alternatives for well-known marks, local officers, e-KYC, TMCH, data sharing; to government for frameworks, repositories, lists; dynamic+ criteria; to banks for name lookup and SOPs; for this suit, granted permanent/dynamic+ injunction restraining use/passing off, mandatory blocks/takedowns by registries/DNRs/DoT/MeitY/ISPs/search engines, domain transfers, full disclosures, suit decreed via summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC/IPD Rules r.27 without damages, list for further proceedings January 28, 2026.

- Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Registry Operators are obligated under ICANN agreements to verify registrant details, investigate inaccuracies/abuse, provide WHOIS/RDDS access, comply with court orders, and prevent registrations violating third-party rights, with failure risking termination or safe harbour loss under IT Act s.79: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Paras 261-262, 272.

- Privacy protect shall not be default/opt-out; offered only on opt-in as paid value-added service separate from registration package: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(i).

- DNRs must disclose specified registrant/admin/tech/payment/hosting details to legitimate interests/LEAs/courts within 72 hours under Intermediary Guidelines 2021: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(ii).

- Infringing domains adjudged illegitimate shall be permanently blocked by registries/DNRs, not re-registered or pooled: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(iii).

- For well-known/invented marks with reputation in India, injunctions bar alternative domains/extensions/mirrors/alphanumerics: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(iv).

- DNRs shall not promote/suggest alternatives to injuncted domains, else lose safe harbour: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(v).

- For descriptive/generic marks, injunctions specific but extendable via Joint Registrar intervention: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(vi).

- Injuncted domains transferable to TM owner on usual charges: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(vii).

- No promotion/optimization services by search engines/DNRs to infringing domains: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(viii).

- All DNRs in India to appoint local Grievance Officers within one month, publish contacts: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(ix).

- Email service on Grievance Officer sufficient; insistence on MLAT/other modes deems non-compliant: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(x).

- Courts may direct MeitY/DoT to block non-compliant DNRs/services under IT Act s.69A for public order: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Paras 279(A)(xi), (B)(c).

- Registries to implement Trademark Clearinghouse for all brands: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(xii).

- DNRs in India to verify registrant details via e-KYC per CERT-In circular, periodically: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(xiii).

- DNRs under NIXI to provide registration data monthly: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(A)(xiv).

- Government to consult on NIXI-like framework, nominate nodal data repository, enable TMCH, publish well-known marks/websites list: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(B), (xvi).

- Dynamic+ injunction applies to exact marks, prefix/suffix/alphanumeric variations; legitimate registrants may seek court order: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(C)(xvii).

- Banks to mandatorily implement Beneficiary Name Lookup per RBI circular and abide by CEIB SOP for LEAs: Tata Sky Limited v. S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors., CS(COMM) 20/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 279(D).

Case Title: Tata Sky Limited Vs S G Enterprises – Tata Sky Sales and Services and Ors.  

Order date: 24th December, 2025  

Case Number: CS (COMM) 20/2019 & I.A. 561/2019  

Neutral Citation: N/A  

Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

Name of Judge: Justice Prathiba M. Singh  

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]  

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Amitoje India Pvt Ltd Vs Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Amitoje India Pvt Ltd, authorized to manufacture and sell, and Ravinder Kaur, sole proprietor of patentee M/s Amitoje India, filed a 2024 suit against Classic Display Systems Pvt Ltd for infringing patent IN 533643 granted April 18, 2024 with priority October 17, 2018 for a foldable product display unit featuring tandem-moving shelves via connecting means and side panels folding sideways in the same direction, seeking permanent injunction against defendant's identical units; defendant filed counterclaim challenging validity on grounds including lack of inventive step over prior art US20100051568A1 published March 4, 2010. Procedurally, defendant's application to file additional documents including US'568 was initially deferred as unrelated to interim relief but later allowed for interim purposes after disputes and recall of part-heard release order on May 22, 2025 following plaintiffs' consent to address it on merits. The court analyzed no presumption of patent validity, defendant raised credible challenge as US'568 not cited in pre-grant opposition rejected by Controller, common general knowledge includes known foldable displays, suit patent's features are obvious workshop improvements over US'568's similar structure erecting by squeezing sides or displacing center panel without teaching away, thus vulnerable under Section 64(1)(f) Patents Act; no prima facie case for infringement, balance of convenience favors defendant with compensable harm to plaintiffs. Interim injunction application dismissed, defendant directed to file quarterly sales affidavits for similar products.

- No presumption of validity attaches to a granted patent, and vulnerability can be shown by credible challenge without proving actual invalidity at interim stage: Amitoje India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt Ltd, CS(COMM) 765/2024 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 25.

- Higher threshold for credible challenge applies only if same prior arts relied in oppositions and court; new prior art requires standard challenge: Amitoje India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt Ltd, CS(COMM) 765/2024 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 29.

- Common general knowledge for obviousness includes publicly known concepts like foldable display mechanisms, proven by standard works or competent witnesses: Amitoje India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt Ltd, CS(COMM) 765/2024 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 54.

- Prior art teaches away only if it discourages the claimed path, not merely by suggesting alternatives: Amitoje India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt Ltd, CS(COMM) 765/2024 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 85.

- Incremental changes like altering folding direction are mere workshop improvements lacking inventive step if within skilled person's routine capacity: Amitoje India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt Ltd, CS(COMM) 765/2024 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 82.

Case Title: Amitoje India Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd.  

Order date: 24th December, 2025  

Case Number: CS(COMM) 765/2024 & I.A. 38674/2024  

Neutral Citation: N/A  

Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

Name of Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna  

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]  

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Prahlad

Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of the National Dairy Development Board since 1974 manufacturing milk products under the well-known trademark "Mother Dairy" and its blue logo recognized as well-known by prior court order, filed this commercial suit in 2019 against unknown defendants for infringement, passing off, and copyright violation through the domain "motherdairydistributor.com" which mimicked their official website, logo, and content to defraud the public by soliciting payments for distributorships, jobs, or franchises into unrelated bank accounts. As part of a batch of suits addressing widespread cyber fraud via infringing domains registered with fictitious details and privacy shields, proceedings spanned 2019-2025 involving summons, interim injunctions granted ex-parte in May 2019 and made absolute in September 2022, impleading DNRs like GoDaddy, registries like Verisign, government entities including MeitY, DoT, MHA, RBI, NPCI, IBA, Delhi Police, and ICANN; multiple hearings elicited affidavits, status reports on investigations, SOPs for bank-LEA cooperation issued in May 2024, beneficiary name lookup mandated by RBI in December 2024, grievance officer appointments, and stakeholder consultations. The court reasoned that domain names form the online soul of businesses warranting protection against erosion of goodwill and consumer deception; analyzed the domain ecosystem's pyramidical structure under ICANN agreements imposing duties on DNRs and registries for verification, abuse prevention, disclosure, and order compliance; found lacks in KYC, default privacy enabling fraud, intermediary due diligence failures risking safe harbour loss under IT Act s.79, and need for systemic safeguards balancing privacy under DPDP Act with legitimate interests; emphasized dynamic/dynamic+ injunctions to counter rogue websites and non-compliance warranting blocks under IT Act s.69A for public order disruption. The court issued directions to DNRs/registries for no default privacy, 72-hour disclosures, permanent blocks, no alternatives for well-known marks, India-based grievance officers, KYC verifications; to government for frameworks, data repositories, TMCH access; criteria for dynamic+ injunctions extending to variations; to banks for name lookup and SOP adherence; and for this case, granted summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC/IPD Rules r.27 with permanent/dynamic+ injunction restraining use/passing off/copying, mandatory permanent block/takedown by registry/DNRs/DoT/MeitY/ISPs/social media, domain transfer to plaintiff on payment, no damages as not pressed, disposing pending applications.

- Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Registry Operators are obligated under ICANN agreements to verify registrant details, investigate inaccuracies/abuse, provide WHOIS/RDDS access, comply with court orders, and prevent registrations violating third-party rights, with failure risking termination or safe harbour loss under IT Act s.79: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Paras 261-262, 272.

- Privacy protect shall not be default/opt-out; offered only on opt-in as paid value-added service separate from registration package: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(i).

- DNRs must disclose specified registrant/admin/tech/payment/hosting details to legitimate interests/LEAs/courts within 72 hours under Intermediary Guidelines 2021: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(ii).

- Infringing domains adjudged illegitimate shall be permanently blocked by registries/DNRs, not re-registered or pooled: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(iii).

- For well-known/invented marks with reputation in India, injunctions bar alternative domains/extensions/mirrors/alphanumerics: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(iv).

- DNRs shall not promote/suggest alternatives to injuncted domains, else lose safe harbour: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(v).

- For descriptive/generic marks, injunctions specific but extendable via Joint Registrar intervention: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(vi).

- Injuncted domains transferable to TM owner on usual charges: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(vii).

- No promotion/optimization services by search engines/DNRs to infringing domains: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(viii).

- All DNRs in India to appoint local Grievance Officers within one month, publish contacts: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(ix).

- Email service on Grievance Officer sufficient; insistence on MLAT/other modes deems non-compliant: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(x).

- Courts may direct MeitY/DoT to block non-compliant DNRs/services under IT Act s.69A for public order: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Paras 277(A)(xi), (B)(c).

- Registries to implement Trademark Clearinghouse for all brands: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(xii).

- DNRs in India to verify registrant details via e-KYC per CERT-In circular, periodically: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(xiii).

- DNRs under NIXI to provide registration data monthly: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(A)(xiv).

- Government to consult on NIXI-like framework, nominate nodal data repository, enable TMCH, publish well-known marks/websites list: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(B), (xvi).

- Dynamic+ injunction applies to exact marks, prefix/suffix/alphanumeric variations; legitimate registrants may seek court order: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(C)(xvii).

- Banks to mandatorily implement Beneficiary Name Lookup per RBI circular and abide by CEIB SOP for LEAs: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumar Prahlad & Anr., CS(COMM) 297/2019 (High Court of Delhi, December 24, 2025), Para 277(D).

Case Title: Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Prahlad & Anr.  

Order date: 24th December, 2025  

Case Number: CS (COMM) 297/2019  

Neutral Citation: N/A  

Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

Name of Judge: Justice Prathiba M. Singh  

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]  

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Zino Davidoff S.A Vs Ala Mode Ecommerce

Zino Davidoff S.A., a Swiss company founded in 1984 owning registered trademarks 'DAVIDOFF', 'DAVIDOFF COOL WATER', 'COOL WATER', 'HOT WATER' and distinctive trade dresses for perfumes with global sales including India since 1997, discovered in 2025 that defendant Ala Mode Ecommerce LLP was operating website antibrnd.in selling cheaper imitation perfumes under deceptively similar marks 'COOL WATER PARFUM', 'HOT WATER PARFUM' and near-identical trade dresses to mislead consumers by associating with plaintiff's products; filed commercial suit for injunction against infringement, passing off, copyright violation, damages; court granted procedural exemptions from filing legible documents, pre-institution mediation due to urgency citing Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, extension for court fees, permission for additional documents; registered plaint as suit, issued summons with 30-day written statement deadline and admission/denial affidavits; on ex-parte interim application, found plaintiff's long use established goodwill, defendants' adoption dishonest creating confusion/deception for identical goods, prima facie case with irreparable harm and balance favoring plaintiff; granted ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from using impugned marks/dresses, directed domain registrar to disclose subscriber info in sealed cover, compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, listed for further proceedings.

• Exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, permissible where suit contemplates urgent interim relief: Zino Davidoff S.A vs Ala Mode Ecommerce Llp & Anr, Para 4.
• Ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC granted upon prima facie dishonest adoption of deceptively similar marks and trade dresses for identical goods causing confusion and irreparable harm to goodwill: Zino Davidoff S.A vs Ala Mode Ecommerce Llp & Anr, Para 22-24.

Case Title: Zino Davidoff S.A Vs Ala Mode Ecommerce Llp :22.12.2025:CS(COMM) 1397/2025: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd Vs Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited

Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd and another, long-time manufacturers of the renowned liver tonic "Liv.52" since 1955 with valid and subsisting trademark registrations including word mark from 1957 claiming use since 1955, distinctive green-white-orange packaging, immense reputation, goodwill, huge turnover and advertisement spend, discovered in October 2025 that Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited and another were selling a deceptively similar product under the mark "Liv.72" with nearly identical overall visual appearance, colour scheme, trade dress and packaging, leading to likelihood of confusion and deception in the pharmaceutical market. Plaintiffs filed suit for infringement of trademark/trade dress/copyright and passing off, seeking interim relief; despite service including via email, defendants failed to appear. Court found strong prima facie case of deceptive similarity and calculated adoption to mislead consumers, bad faith evident from rejected trademark application for "Liv.72" on proposed use basis yet continued sales, overwhelming similarities in mark, colour combination and product presentation amounting to infringement and misrepresentation, balance of convenience and irreparable injury favouring plaintiffs given nature of medicinal goods. Interim injunction granted in terms of prayers (a) to (c) of notice of motion restraining defendants from using "Liv.72" or similar marks/packaging, with liberty to defendants to apply for vacation/variation/modification, matter listed on 07 January 2026 with direction for fresh service and affidavit thereof.

• Deceptively similar marks like "Liv.52" and "Liv.72" with identical colour scheme (green, white, orange) and overall visual appearance on similar medicinal products constitute prima facie infringement and passing off warranting ex-parte interim injunction due to likelihood of confusion and deception: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd And Anr vs Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited And Anr, Para (implicit from comparison and reasoning section).
• Bad faith adoption evidenced by filing and rejection of trademark application on proposed use basis followed by continued market sales justifies strong prima facie case for interim relief in pharmaceutical goods: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd And Anr vs Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited And Anr, Para (implicit from rejection and continued sale finding).

Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd Vs Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited:IP-COM/53/2025: High Court at Calcutta Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Chryscapital Advisors Llp Vs Raj Lal Kumari

Chryscapital Advisors LLP, a financial advisory firm part of ChrysCapital group since 1999 with registered trademarks CHRYSCAPITAL and formative marks, filed suit for injunction against infringement and passing off after discovering in 2024 that defendants 1-13 were running fraudulent investment schemes via WhatsApp groups and website www.rn.chryscapital.com using plaintiff's marks, executives' names/photos to dupe public into fake investments; amended plaint added defendants 20-22 for similar fraud via www.cc-securities.com, with proforma defendants WhatsApp, Airtel, banks, DoT, MeitY, UOI for disclosure/blocking. Ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted 29.05.2024 blocking numbers/accounts/websites, extended to new defendants 29.07.2024; infringing defendants unserved or non-appearing, written statement rights closed; suit earlier decreed against some defendants 29.10.2025. Court found fraudulent use deceptive, exploiting goodwill with no contest, deeming plaint admitted under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC without trial; permanent block on numbers unnecessary as finite resource without proprietary claim, one-year block sufficient as cooling/disincentive with no reallocation to same KYC. Suit decreed with permanent injunction restraining infringing defendants from using marks; directions to WhatsApp/Airtel for one-year block on specified accounts/numbers; other reliefs not pressed, suit disposed.

• In uncontested infringement suits where defendants fail to file written statements, court may decree permanent injunction under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC relying on verified plaint without requiring ex-parte evidence: Chryscapital Advisors Llp vs Ms Raj Lal Kumari & Ors, Para 18.
• Mobile numbers being finite resources without proprietary rights, permanent blocking not warranted to curb fraud; one-year deactivation sufficient as cooling period with direction against reallocation to same KYC holder: Chryscapital Advisors Llp vs Ms Raj Lal Kumari & Ors, Para 23.

Case Title: Chryscapital Advisors Llp Vs Raj Lal Kumari:19.12.2025:CS(COMM) 475/2024: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Inter Ikea Systems Bv Vs Jin Hua Zhang

Inter Ikea Systems BV, owner of the globally renowned IKEA trademarks registered in India since 2007 with worldwide sales of 44.6 billion Euros in 2022, filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement and passing off after discovering in 2023 that defendants Jin Hua Zhang and AT were operating phishing websites misusing the IKEA mark to falsely advertise and sell identical home furnishing products, leading to deception as evidenced by plaintiff's undelivered test order; domain registrars NameSilo LLC and Namecheap Inc., along with DoT and MeitY, were impleaded as proforma defendants. Ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 01.06.2023; infringing defendants, served in 2023-2024, failed to file written statements, leading to closure of their right on 01.08.2024. At final hearing, plaintiff pressed only for injunction; court found unauthorized use caused deception, irreparable harm to goodwill, and with no contest, deemed plaint averments admitted, decreeing permanent injunction under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC while deleting proforma defendants and disposing other reliefs as not pressed.

• Failure to file written statement deems plaint averments admitted, enabling decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC without ex-parte evidence: Inter Ikea Systems Bv vs Jin Hua Zhang And Others, Para 29.
• Unauthorized use of registered trademark on identical goods via phishing websites constitutes infringement and passing off, warranting permanent injunction due to likelihood of confusion and harm to goodwill: Inter Ikea Systems Bv vs Jin Hua Zhang And Others, Para 25.

Case Title: Inter Ikea Systems Bv Vs Jin Hua Zhang : 19.12.2025:CS(COMM) 390/2023:Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Capital Foods Private Limited Vs Spice Nest Impex Private Limited

Capital Foods Private Limited, a leading food enterprise and associate of TATA Group pioneering 'Desi Chinese' cuisine, adopted and registered the trademark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' in 2012 for sauces with copyright in trade dress, achieving secondary significance per prior court order, significant sales of Rs. 18,677 lakhs and promotion expenses of Rs. 1,599.96 lakhs in FY 2024-25; discovered in May 2025 that defendant Spice Nest Impex was manufacturing and selling identical products under the same mark via websites and e-commerce, sent cease notices met with refusal claiming descriptiveness; filed commercial suit for infringement, passing off, seeking injunction. Court granted procedural reliefs including extension for court fee, exemption from pre-institution mediation due to urgency, filing dim documents and additional documents; registered plaint as suit, issued summons with 30-day WS deadline; on ex-parte IA hearing, found prima facie triple identity in mark, goods, channels causing confusion, irreparable harm to plaintiff, balance of convenience favoring it; granted ad-interim injunction restraining defendant from using 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' or similar marks, but permitted 'SCHEZWAN SAUCE' per plaintiff's concession, with notice and compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, listing for further dates.

• Prior registered trademark with acquired secondary significance warrants ex-parte ad-interim injunction against identical impugned mark on identical goods due to triple identity and likelihood of confusion: Capital Foods Private Limited vs Spice Nest Impex Private Limited, Para 29.
• Exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, permissible in suits seeking urgent interim relief as per Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi: Capital Foods Private Limited vs Spice Nest Impex Private Limited, Para 5.
• Plaintiff entitled to protection against passing off where defendant's adoption lacks plausible explanation other than riding on goodwill: Capital Foods Private Limited vs Spice Nest Impex Private Limited, Para 24.2.

Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited Vs Spice Nest Impex Private Limited:18.12.2025:CS(COMM) 1358/2025: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Salman Khan Vs Ashok Kumar

Salman Khan, a renowned actor with over three decades of career establishing immense goodwill and celebrity status, filed a commercial suit against John Does and various defendants including online platforms and sellers for misappropriation of his personality/publicity rights, trademark and copyright infringement, performer's rights violation, and passing off through unauthorized sale of merchandise featuring his name, image, voice, likeness, and spreading fake news; procedural steps included granting exemptions from filing clear/original documents and pre-institution mediation due to urgency, registering the suit, issuing summons to identified infringing defendants while treating platforms as proforma defendants for compliance without summons. The court, perusing the plaint and documents, held prima facie that Salman Khan's personality traits are protectable under common law as per precedents like DM Entertainment, Anil Kapoor, and Jackie Shroff cases, finding unauthorized commercial exploitation causes irreparable harm with balance of convenience favoring him. Ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted restraining infringing defendants from using his attributes, with directions to proforma defendants to remove/suspend/block specified URLs/domains/accounts within 72 hours, listing for further proceedings.

• Celebrities acquire proprietary rights over personality attributes like name, image, voice, and likeness through goodwill, entitling injunction against unauthorized commercial exploitation: Salman Khan vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors., Para 34.
• Unauthorized use of celebrity personality for merchandise or fake news dissemination violates publicity rights, warranting ex-parte interim relief upon prima facie case of irreparable harm: Salman Khan vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors., Para 35.
• Online platforms as proforma defendants may be directed to remove infringing content without adversarial summons, subject to future issuance if position turns hostile: Salman Khan vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors., Para 23.
• Exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act permissible for suits seeking urgent interim relief: Salman Khan vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors., Para 12.

Case Title: Salman Khan Vs Ashok Kumar:11.12.2025:CS(COMM) 1322/2025:Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Zydus Healthcare Ltd. Vs Assistant Controller of Patents

Zydus Healthcare Ltd, a pharmaceutical company, challenged the Controller's order granting Patent No. 426553 to Respondent No. 2 for an application filed in 2012 titled 'Compositions and Methods for Treating Centrally Mediated Nausea and Vomiting', which underwent three amendments to claims, reducing from 51 to a final set after voluntary changes and responses to FER and hearings.

Petitioner filed pre-grant opposition in 2021 alleging broadening of claims violating Sections 57 and 59, lack of hearing opportunity at second hearing violating natural justice, but Controller rejected opposition and granted patent after separate examination hearing to applicant only.

The court, relying on Novartis AG v. Union of India, held that pre-grant opposition and patent examination are distinct processes with no right for opponent to participate or be heard in examination phase, voluntary pre-FER amendments need no separate order and can be addressed in FER, no jurisdictional error or natural justice violation occurred as opposition hearing was provided and documents uploaded publicly, merits review impermissible in writ absent manifest error, and Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction since Patent Office is in Mumbai. Writ petition dismissed.

• Pre-grant opposition and patent examination are separate proceedings; opponent has no right to hearing or participation in the examination process: Para 60(e).
• Voluntary amendments to patent claims before issuance of First Examination Report require no separate determination order and may be considered in the FER: Para 60(c).
• High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction over writ petition challenging patent grant if relevant Patent Office is not located within its jurisdiction: Para 60(a).
• Review on merits involving disputed facts not permissible in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 absent jurisdictional error by Controller: Para 60(d).
• High Court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 despite alternative remedies if manifest jurisdictional error found: Para 60(b).

Case Title: Zydus Healthcare Ltd. Vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs:24.12.2025:W.P.(C)-IPD 23/2023:2025:DHC:11932:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Rajvaidya Shital Prasad Vs Karna Goomar

Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons, engaged in manufacturing ayurvedic syrups and tonics, adopted the mark 'HEMPUSHPA' in 1933 with registration from 1983 claiming use since 1938, building significant goodwill as a well-known mark for women's tonic advertised by celebrities. Karna Goomar registered 'ACTIVEPUSHPA' in 2016 claiming use from 1992 for similar ayurvedic medicines, prompting the petitioner to file a rectification petition under Sections 9, 11, 12, 18, 34, 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging deceptive similarity, dishonest adoption, and registry error in not citing the prior mark. The court analyzed the marks holistically, finding 'PUSHPA' dominant in both despite anti-dissection rule under Sections 15 and 17, as respondent emphasized it in labels, indicating bad faith to exploit petitioner's reputation; goods identical, channels same, confusion likely, especially for pharmaceuticals; registry lapse justified rectification for purity. Petition allowed, mark cancelled.

• Suffix in word marks can be dominant and cause confusion if emphasized in use, overriding anti-dissection rule under Sections 15 and 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, when marks share identity in goods and channels: Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons vs Karna Goomar and Anr., Para 37.
• Bad faith adoption emphasizing similarity to prior mark warrants rectification under Section 11, even if common element argued generic: Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons vs Karna Goomar and Anr., Para 40.
• Registry's failure to cite prior similar marks during examination justifies cancellation to maintain register purity under Section 57: Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons vs Karna Goomar and Anr., Para 43.

Case Title: Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons Vs Karna Goomar :24.12.2025:C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 385/2021:2025:DHC:11881:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

creamline Dairy Products Ltd. Vs. RK Ganapathi Chettiar

Creamline Dairy Products Ltd. filed a suit against RK Ganapathi Chettiar and Arihant Marketings for copyright infringement and passing off related to the sale of ghee, after discovering the alleged infringement in November 2024, with the suit instituted in late February 2025 without prior cease and desist notice or mediation. 

The first defendant applied to reject the plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre-institution mediation unless urgent interim relief is contemplated, arguing the suit lacked urgency and distinguishing the Supreme Court's Novenco judgment on facts involving prior party relations and communications. 

The plaintiff countered that Novenco supports viewing IP infringement suits as involving continuing acts, thus inherently contemplating urgency. The court, referencing Yamini Manohar and Novenco, examined the plaint from the plaintiff's perspective, considering the nature of IP actions and public interest, and found no basis to deem the interim relief prayer as camouflage to evade mediation given the suit's filing within four months of discovery, ultimately dismissing the rejection application without costs.

Law Point:

In suits for infringement of intellectual property rights, which involve continuing acts of alleged infringement, it cannot be concluded that the suit does not contemplate urgent interim relief :Para 3.

The question of whether a suit contemplates urgent interim relief, exempting it from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, should be decided by the court from the plaintiff's perspective : Para 4-5.

Case Title: Creamline Dairy Products Ltd. Vs. RK Ganapathi Chettiar:08.12.2025: C.S(Comm.Div)No.108 of 2025 : Madras HC:Honourable Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation] 

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. Vs Meghmani Life Sciences

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and another for trademark infringement and passing off alleging defendant's mark 'EsiRaft' deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered 'RACIRAFT' both used for identical oral suspension products containing Sodium Alginate Sodium Bicarbonate and Calcium Carbonate treating heartburn and indigestion with plaintiff adopting mark in January 2022 securing Class 5 registration and achieving sales of 11.85 crores in 2022-2023 and 24.49 crores in 2023-2024 while defendant No1 markets and No2 manufactures the impugned product since July 2024. Procedurally ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 7 April 2025 restraining defendants from using the mark after which defendant sought vacation under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC but the interim application was heard finally with consent reserved on 9 December 2025 and pronounced on 23 December 2025. The court reasoned applying principles of deceptive similarity under Trade Marks Act 1999 including anti-dissection rule holistic comparison visual structural and phonetic assessment that marks are dissimilar with distinct prefixes RACI vs Esi and common descriptive suffix RAFT indicating foam-forming property from sodium alginate providing plausible defense for adoption two-color depiction common to trade not deceptive by itself no dishonest adoption given defendant's cogent explanation for Esi no prima facie case for infringement or passing off under Cadila factors considering dissimilar get-up no confusion likelihood and defendant's prior use without acquiescence. The court vacated the ad-interim relief dismissed the interim application but extended the relief for one week from order upload date.

• In determining deceptive similarity of pharmaceutical trademarks, courts must apply the anti-dissection rule and conduct a holistic visual, structural, and phonetic comparison of marks as a whole, where a common descriptive suffix like 'RAFT' indicating product properties (foam formation from sodium alginate) does not render marks similar if prefixes are distinct [Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and Another, Interim Application (L) No.9484 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No.353 of 2025, Paras 20, 23].
• Use of a descriptive term such as 'RAFT' for raft-forming antacids constitutes a plausible defense against claims of dishonest adoption, and two-color combinations common to the trade do not by themselves establish deceptive similarity absent overall confusion [Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and Another, Interim Application (L) No.9484 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No.353 of 2025, Paras 19, 31].
• For passing off actions involving unregistered trademarks, the factors outlined in Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73—including nature of marks, resemblance, goods, purchasers, purchase mode, and surrounding circumstances—must be considered with variable weightage based on case facts, and absence of resemblance precludes relief [Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and Another, Interim Application (L) No.9484 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No.353 of 2025, Para 34].

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. Vs Meghmani Life Sciences:23.12.2025:Commercial IP Suit No. .353 of 2025: Bombay HC:Sharmila U. Deshmukh

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Phonographic Performance Limited Vs Trinetra Venture

Phonographic Performance Limited filed commercial IP suits against Trinetra Venture and Ors owning 94 restaurants and Anoor Paripati and Ors for copyright infringement in sound recordings and quia timet action for apprehended future violations claiming ownership and exclusive licensing rights via assignments from music companies entitling it to grant public performance licenses under Section 30 of Copyright Act 1957 supported by cease and desist notices affidavits of unauthorized broadcasting during visits on specific dates and video evidence while defendants contended non-maintainability for failure to implead owners under Section 61 plaintiff not being registered society suppression of facts via non-annexure of agreements incomplete redacted sample deeds and inadequate stamping. The court reasoned following prior Bombay decisions that registration under Section 33(1) is unnecessary for owners or exclusive licensees to sue non-joinder under Section 61 is not fatal given joint cause as owner and licensee and court's discretion unstamped deeds' admissibility arises at evidence stage under Stamp Act Section 34 redacted samples and full deeds on CD/website suffice prima facie unreasonable fees no defense absent Section 31 compulsory license proceedings implying rights admission infringement established by unchallenged affidavit tilting balance favoring plaintiff against continuing loss. The court granted interim injunction restraining defendants from public performance or communication of plaintiff's repertoire without license pending suit disposal.

• An owner or exclusive licensee of copyright in sound recordings is entitled to maintain an infringement action and grant licenses under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957, without registration as a copyright society under Section 33(1) [Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36005 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, Para 10].
• Non-joinder of the copyright owner under Section 61 does not bar interim relief when the plaintiff sues in dual capacity as owner and exclusive licensee, with the court having discretion to dispense with joinder, and Section 54 includes exclusive licensee within "owner of copyright" for civil remedies under Section 55 [Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36005 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, Para 12].
• Unstamped assignment deeds do not preclude consideration for ad-interim relief, as their admissibility in evidence under Section 34 of the Stamp Act is determined at the trial stage [Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36005 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, Para 14].
• Redacted sample agreements annexed to the plaint, with full voluminous deeds provided on compact disk and hosted on the plaintiff's website, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case at the interim stage without requiring physical annexure to avoid burdening court records [Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36005 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, Para 13].
• Allegations of unreasonable licensing fees or refusal to license do not constitute a defense to copyright infringement unless pursued via compulsory licensing under Section 31, and such plea implies admission of the plaintiff's ownership rights [Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36005 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, Para 15].

Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited Vs Trinetra Venture:24.12.2025: Comm IP Suit No. 668 OF 2025:2025:BHC-OS:26530:Bombay HC:Sharmila U. Deshmukh J.

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation] [Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

MEX Switchgears Vs Vikram Suri

MEX Switchgears Pvt Ltd appealed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 against the Deputy Registrar's order dated 24.05.2018 deeming their Opposition No. 851850 to respondent Vikram Suri's Application No. 1985391 for registration of "ARMEX" as abandoned under Rule 45(2) of Trade Marks Rules 2017 for failure to file evidence in support or reliance statement within prescribed time after service of counter statement on 22.11.2017 solely via email, with the respondent served but filing no reply and remaining absent throughout proceedings. The court reasoned that Section 143 permits service of documents by leaving at or sending by post to the address for service provided in the application or notice of opposition, interpreting "leaving them at" expansively to include email only if an email ID is voluntarily provided therein as it implies consent to electronic service, but since appellant provided no email ID, email dispatch alone did not constitute valid legal service as parties have discretion to choose service address absent statutory mandate for email, rendering the abandonment order unsustainable for lack of proper service. The court set aside the impugned order without costs, directed appellant to comply with post-service statutory requirements like filing evidence within stipulated time reckoned from judgment date, with failure entailing statutory consequences.

• Service of documents under Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, must be effected by leaving them at or sending them by post to the address for service stated in the application or notice of opposition; service by email is permissible only if an email ID is provided as part of the address for service, as it conveys consent to such mode [M/S MEX Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikram Suri Trading as M/S Armex Auto Industries, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2022, Paras 7-8].
• Where no email ID is provided in the notice of opposition, sending documents solely by email does not constitute valid service under Section 143, even if sent to the opponent's actual email, as the choice of service address vests with the party and the Registry must adhere strictly to the provided address [M/S MEX Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikram Suri Trading as M/S Armex Auto Industries, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2022, Paras 9-10].
• An order deeming opposition abandoned under Rule 45(2) of Trade Marks Rules, 2017, for non-filing of evidence due to improper service is liable to be set aside, with the opponent directed to comply with evidentiary requirements from the date of the appellate judgment [M/S MEX Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikram Suri Trading as M/S Armex Auto Industries, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2022, Paras 12-15].

Case Title: MEX Switchgears Vs Vikram Suri Order date: 13.10.2023 Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2022 Neutral Citation: Not Available Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation] [Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Coffee Board Vs Fulkant Jha

Coffee Board filed a petition under C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 391/2022 against Fulkant Jha trading as JFK International and another in a trademark dispute concerning the use and exclusive rights over a logo or mark, with the petitioner relying on certain documents to demonstrate its prior use and policy against individual exporters claiming exclusivity. In the interlocutory application I.A. 8296/2024, the petitioner sought to place additional documents 1 to 9 on record, which the respondent opposed on grounds of irrelevance for documents 1-3, delay for document 4, lack of merit for foreign judgments in documents 5-7, and general contentions for documents 8-9 that were previously exchanged. The court reasoned that relevance objections for documents 1-3 could be addressed at final hearing without prejudicing admissibility, document 4 was essential for adjudicating merits despite delay claims, documents 5-7 as foreign judgments could anyway be cited in arguments rendering opposition meritless, and documents 8-9 could be admitted without prejudice allowing respondent rebuttal. The court decided to take all documents 1-9 on record with respondent's rights and contentions preserved including relevance objections for final arguments, granted respondent four weeks to file rebuttal documents failing which liberty exhausts, disposed of the application, noted original documents seen and returned for final hearing, permitted parties to file amended written submissions one week before next date, and listed the main petition for hearing on 15.04.2026.

• Objections to the relevance of additional documents sought to be placed on record in intellectual property proceedings are to be considered at the stage of final hearing, and taking such documents on record does not constitute an expression on their relevance  Para 4].
• Documents that rebut the respondent's basis for claiming exclusive rights, such as a policy document disallowing individual claims over a logo, deserve to be taken on record to properly adjudicate the merits of the dispute, notwithstanding objections of delay [ Para 5].
• Judgments of foreign courts can be relied upon during oral arguments without the need to formally file them as additional documents, and thus opposition to taking them on record lacks merit , Para 6].
• Documents previously exchanged between parties may be taken on record without prejudice to the respondent's rights and contentions, with liberty granted to the respondent to file rebuttal documents within a specified time frame , Para 7].

Case Title: Coffee Board Vs Fulkant Jha:19.12.2025:C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 391/2022: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Astellas Institute For Regenerative Medicine Vs The Controller Of Patents

Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine appealed against the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated March 23, 2022, rejecting their national phase patent application No. 1547/KOLNP/2010 titled "Improved Methods of Producing RPE Cells and Compositions of RPE Cells," which involves a method for differentiating retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells from human pluripotent stem cells like embryonic and induced ones for screening and therapeutic uses, on the ground that it falls under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, as potentially contrary to morality and prejudicial to human life due to ethical concerns in deriving stem cells from single blastomeres that may harm embryo implantation and survival.

Procedurally, the application was filed, a First Examination Report issued on May 25, 2017, responses and amended claims submitted, hearings conducted with written arguments, and fresh objections under Section 59(1) addressed before the impugned rejection. The appellant contended the method uses pre-established cell lines without new embryo destruction and sources stem cells solely from umbilical cord or biological waste, but the court reasoned that this claim was not borne out from the pleadings, specifications, or amended claims, which do not limit the stem cell source and treat parthenogenesis as optional, rendering the invention ethically challenging as per evidence cited; the impugned order was found adequately reasoned without infirmity, illegality, or perversity, leading to dismissal of the appeal without costs.

• An invention whose primary or intended use or commercial exploitation is contrary to public order or morality or causes serious prejudice to human, animal, or plant life or health or to the environment is not patentable under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 [Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine vs The Controller of Patents and Designs, IPDAID/41/2024, Para 8].
• Arguments raised in appeal must be supported by the pleadings, amended claims, and specifications filed with the patent application; contentions introduced for the first time from the bar, such as limiting stem cell sources to umbilical cord, cannot be entertained if not reflected in the application documents [Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine vs The Controller of Patents and Designs, IPDAID/41/2024, Paras 5, 10].
• Rejection of a patent on ethical grounds under Section 3(b) is justified if the order is reasoned, considers all submissions, and relies on evidence showing the invention's process is ethically challenging and not embryo-saving, such as potential detrimental effects on embryo survival [Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine vs The Controller of Patents and Designs, IPDAID/41/2024, Paras 7, 12].

Case Title: Astellas Institute For Regenerative Medicine Vs The Controller Of Patents:22.12.2025:IPDAID/41/2024:2025-CHC-OS/273:Calcutta HC: Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Baldev Raj Vs. Brothers Tobacco

The petitioner challenged an order dated 09.12.2025 of the District Judge dismissing his application to bring on record two trademark registration certificates obtained in 2018 in a passing off suit filed in 2010, but subsequently limited his challenge to seeking permission to tender these certificates through an additional affidavit of PW-1 without converting the suit into one for infringement.

The respondent consented to the certificates being taken on record while reserving all rights and contending that the suit remains confined to passing off since the registrations post-dated the filing and issues had already been framed. The High Court, accepting the mutual stand of the parties, allowed the petitioner to file the additional affidavit with the certificates within three days but expressly clarified that no claim of infringement could be raised and the suit would proceed only on passing off, while leaving the respondent's objections on merits open, directing expeditious evidence, and noting consent for a short adjournment on costs.

• Subsequent trademark registration obtained after filing of a passing off suit cannot be used to convert the cause of action or relief to infringement, especially when the plaintiff was in possession of the registration certificates before framing of issues and consciously chose not to amend the plaint (Para 7).
• Limited liberty can be granted to place post-filing trademark registration certificates on record in a passing off suit through additional evidence, subject to the condition that it does not alter the nature of the suit from passing off to infringement (Paras 6-7).

Case Title: Baldev Raj Vs. Brothers Tobacco & Ors.:18.12.2025:CM(M)-IPD 49/2025:ge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Zentic Pharmaceutical Vs. Apsara Herbals

M/s Zentic Pharmaceutical filed a commercial suit CS(COMM) 1111/2025 before the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, but subsequently moved an application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute fresh proceedings, stating that an earlier suit CS(COMM) 2865/2024 on the same cause was pending before the District Judge (Commercial Court), South East District, Saket Courts, making the High Court suit incompetent due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The defendant did not oppose the withdrawal. The Delhi High Court allowed the application, permitted withdrawal of the suit without prejudice to rights, and granted liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

• Where a commercial trademark infringement suit is filed in the High Court but an identical suit on the same cause is already pending in a competent Commercial Court below the pecuniary jurisdiction threshold, the plaintiff can withdraw the High Court suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC with liberty to pursue or file afresh, especially when withdrawal is unopposed (Order paras on application and consent).

Case Title: Zentic Pharmaceutical Vs. Apsara Herbals: November 27, 2025:2025:DHC:11307: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]