Bulletin 24 | Apr 2025
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained several highway restaurants from infringing the registered trademark ‘MANNAT’ of the Mannat Group of Hotels.
Held, the Defendants deliberately and slavishly adopted identical marks to deceive consumers, amounting to trademark infringement and passing off.
The Court upheld the Plaintiffs’ statutory, proprietary, and common law rights, noting misuse of goodwill and mala fide intent. A permanent injunction was issued, affirming prior interim relief granted in January last year.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court allowed a Rectification Petition filed by Kiranakart Technologies under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which deals with the cancellation of a registered trademark due to non-use and lack of bona fide intention to use, thereby cancelling the trademark “ZEPTO”.
Held, the Respondent had not used the mark for over five years, failed to contest the non-use allegations which was supported by an investigator’s affidavit, and did not file a reply, rendering the averments as being admitted.
The Trade Marks Registry was directed to remove the impugned mark bearing no. 2773519 in class 35.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
XCORP VS UNION OF INDIA
X Corp (formerly Twitter) filed a writ petition challenging information-blocking orders issued by the Government under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
X Corp pressed for an interim injunction order, contending that these information-blocking orders are arbitrary and bypass procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal for content blocking while issuing notices under Section 79 of the IT Act.
The Court issued notice on the petition, however, no interim relief has been granted.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
KAILASH S/O. LATE MEHAR SINGH KHER VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ORS.
A Division bench of the Bombay HC quashed a criminal complaint against the singer Kailash Kher for allegedly hurting religious sentiments through his song “Babam Bam”. The Court observed that every action disliked by people does not necessarily amount to an offence under Section 295A IPC. The Court held that deliberate and malicious intent is an essential ingredient of the offence laid down in section 295A IPC.
SUPREME COURT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled on a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, stating that the clause in the agreement which deemed Indian law as governing the agreement and Gujarat courts as having jurisdiction, impliedly applied Indian law to the arbitration agreement, despite another clause specifying Bogota, Colombia, as the arbitration venue with Colombian law for the award.
The Court clarified that Indian courts retained supervisory jurisdiction, applying the three-step test from Sulamérica Cia.
Significant Judgments
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the interim injunction granted by the Bombay High Court, concerning the “Burger King” mark, in favor of Burger King Corporation (BKC), USA.
The dispute originated in 2011 when BKC filed a suit for trademark infringement against a Pune-based eatery using the name “Burger King.” BKC claimed prior international use since 1954, while the Pune eatery asserted prior use in India since 1992, before BKC’s 2006 Indian registration.
The District Court dismissed BKC’s suit, recognizing the eatery’s longstanding use. However, in August 2024, the Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Pune-based eatery from using the “Burger King” mark.
Hearing the SLP against the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the interim injunction, allowing the eatery to continue using the trademark pending further proceedings.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Roche filed a patent infringement suit against Natco for Indian Patent No. IN 334397, a species patent for Risdiplam, a drug used to treat Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). The Delhi High Court declined to grant an interim injunction, holding that:
- The defendant raised a credible challenge to the patent’s validity, particularly on grounds of anticipation, obviousness, and inherent disclosure based on the prior genus patent WO’916 and admissions made by the plaintiffs in foreign jurisdictions.
- The balance of convenience favored the defendant, as Roche’s import-only model led to exorbitant drug prices (approx. ₹1.48 crore/year), making treatment inaccessible to most patients.
- Public interest was a critical factor; with SMA being a rare and life-threatening condition, the defendant’s proposed generic version would improve access. Roche’s Patient Assistance Program, covering only 486 patients, was found inadequate.
- The plaintiffs could be compensated by damages if they succeeded at trial.
The court balanced patentee rights with the constitutional right to health. The matter is now in Appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Johnson & Johnson filed a suit against M/s Medserve for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and passing off its surgical devices sold under the marks ‘SURGICEL’, ‘LIGACLIP’ and ‘ETHICON’. Following complaints, and upon investigation, it was found that the counterfeit products were inadequately oxidized, non-sterile, contaminated, and were also fraudulently bearing Johnson & Johnson’s trademarks.
Evidence, including the Local Commissioner’s report, electronic communications, and financial records confirmed possession and distribution of counterfeit products, repackaging expired products, and involvement in Hawala transactions to launder proceeds.
The Delhi High Court held that the Defendants were engaged in organized counterfeiting operations, posing public health risks and endangering lives. The Court also noted that Defendant’s acts have caused harm to Plaintiff’s goodwill and misled consumers. The Court granted a permanent injunction and imposed compensatory and exemplary damages in favor of the Plaintiff.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari, Disha Sharma, Surabhi Pande, Aniruddh Bhatia, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Rimjhim Tiwari, Ishi Singh, Mehr Sidhu and Abhinav Bhalla.
