Bulletin 23 | Mar 2025
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court rejected Zee Entertainment’s application for additional documents and held that documents cannot be filed arbitrarily in a commercial suit. Emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal in such matters, the Court found no reasonable or justifiable explanation for Zee’s seven-year delay in attempting to lead secondary evidence despite being aware that it lacked original documents. It further reaffirmed that secondary evidence is inadmissible without foundational proof and imposed a cost of INR 25,000/- on Zee while dismissing the application.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against tweets posted by the Contesting Defendants on ‘X’, alleging defamation and reputational harm in cyberspace.
The Court upon analysing the tweets, rejected the Plaint with a cost of INR 1 Lac., while setting out the following principles:
The tweets must be read holistically and in context of the entire conversation thread, including the Plaintiff’s own provocative posts, and do not create a cause of action as stand-alone defamatory comments; ‘X’ is a casual, conversational platform; mere abuse or vulgar language is not defamation; real reputational harm must be demonstrated; statutory remedies under IT Rules ought to have been be pursued; and delay and habitual litigation undermine the credibility of defamation claims.
DELHI HIGH COURT
In appeals against the order of the Ld. Joint registrar passed in relation to applications seeking condonation of delay in filing written statements, the Court decided whether the time spent in mediation should be excluded when calculating the 120-day period for filing written statements under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
Allowing the appeals, the Court observed:
- The 120-day limit is sacrosanct, but time spent in bona fide mediation proceedings ought to be excluded from limitation period.
- Mediation under S. 89 CPC is vital for amicable settlements, and forcing pleadings during mediation undermines its spirit, which seeks a win-win outcome.
COMMERCIAL COURT, JAMMU
STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/S TAKE ONE JK MEDIA PVT. LTD.
The Commercial Court in Jammu granted an interim injunction in favor of Star India, restraining defendants (MSO) from retransmitting, rebroadcasting, or communicating the Plaintiff’s content including TV shows and sports content inter alia ICC Champions Trophy 2025, Plaintiff’s channels (free-to-air channels provided to DD Dish and foreign channels not permitted in India). The Court found that despite termination of the Subscription License Agreement and disconnection of signals by Star, the Defendant continued to illegally broadcast Star’s content to its subscribers, thereby violating its copyright.
DELHI HIGH COURT
In a trademark infringement suit, the Court restrained the defendants from misusing the trademarks “TATA”, “TATA TRUSTS”, and the name and image of Late Mr. Ratan Tata to promote fake awards and solicit fees. Holding the conduct fraudulent and deceptive, the Court recognized Mr. Tata’s name as a well-known personal mark and affirmed that publicity rights survive death. As such, a decree was passed basis an undertaking from the Defendants.
Significant Judgments
DELHI HIGH COURT
Plaintiff, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), filed a suit against Sammaan Capital for trademark infringement, alleging that the Defendants, also engaged in financial services, adopted the name “SAMMAAN,” which is deceptively similar to “SVAMAAN.”
Finding a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff, the Court restrained the Defendants from using, advertising, or displaying any mark/name identical or deceptively similar to “SVAMAAN.” It was observed:
- “SAMMAAN” and “SVAMAAN” are structurally and phonetically similar.
- “SVAMAAN” (self-respect) and “SAMMAAN” (honor/respect) are conceptually / semantically alike.
- The Defendants failed to justify their adoption of “SAMMAAN,” despite prior knowledge of the plaintiff’s mark, undermining their claim of bona fide usage.
The Single Judge’s order was stayed in the appeals before the Division Bench with the direction to the Defendants to prominently include disclaimers in all advertisements stating: “Formerly known as Indiabulls” and “We have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.”
COMMERCIAL COURT, GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR
M/S JUBILANT GENERICS LTD. V. M/S MEDREICH LTD. & ORS.
The Commercial Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, reproducing, distributing, or exporting pharmaceutical products using the Plaintiff’s product dossiers. The Plaintiff asserted infringement of copyright and misappropriation of confidential information, contending that the product dossiers—original literary works protected under the Copyright Act—were wrongfully shared by Jamp Pharma (a Canadian licensee) with Indian entities post-expiry of license agreements.
The Defendants argued lawful authorization under a perpetual license and ongoing arbitration proceedings in Canada. The Court held that the license was territorially restricted to Canada and did not permit manufacture in India. As the Defendants were not privy to the license agreements, their access and use of the dossiers amounted to unauthorized exploitation of the Plaintiff’s intellectual property. Finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, the Court confirmed the injunction pending final adjudication.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The court delivered its third post-trial SEP judgment ruling in favor of Philips across 3 cases involving patent for DVD technology. The Court awarded, across the 3 suits, substantial damages of approximately USD 16.9 million (INR 14.28 crore) plus USD 361,446 (INR 3 crore) as aggravated damages, with 12% interest from filing date until realization. The following key findings emerged:
- The Court accepted Philips’ royalty rate of USD 0.03 per DVD as FRAND without examining third-party agreements, relying instead on Philips’ standard license documentation.
- All defendants were deemed “unwilling licensees” for failing to accept offers or provide counteroffers, engaging in delay tactics, refusing to provide sales details.
- Damages were calculated based on the standard royalty rate. The Court drew adverse inferences against defendants who withheld sales information, accepting Philips’ evidence gathered from stampers supplied to defendants.
- The Court calculated damages from three years prior to filing (2009) until patent expiry (2015), a departure from the Lava v. Ericsson judgement (2024 DHC 2698) which used date of knowledge of infringement of patent and held that the limitation period is not applicable to the Patents Act.
- The Court held company directors jointly and severally liable for the damages, piercing the corporate veil due to fraudulent conduct and evasive behavior of the directors.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Disha Sharma, Surabhi Pande, Aniruddh Bhatia, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Rimjhim Tiwari, Ishi Singh and Mehr Sidhu.
