Bulletin 25 | May 2025
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
San Nutrition’s plea for a temporary injunction against four influencers who allegedly criticized its ‘ISO PURE’ supplement, was rejected. The Court held that the content was based on accredited lab reports, therefore qualified as truth and fair comment. Further, the impugned videos included disclaimers and were deemed to not be promotional in nature. Applying the Bonnard principle, it found the balance of convenience favored the Defendants and that an injunction would curtail their Article 19(1)(a) right to free speech. Further, it was also held that no trademark misuse was established, as the trademark use was not as part of an advertisement.
DELHI HIGH COURT
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH V. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS & TRADEMARKS. [C.A. (Comm. IPD-PAT) 302/2022]
The Court set aside the rejection of Fresenius Medical Care’s patent application concerning microvesicles for cancer treatment. Amendments to the Patent claims were allowed by the Court, holding that Section 59 of the Patents Act permits amendments by disclaimer, correction, or explanation, provided they incorporate facts disclosed in the specification. Recognizing that such amendments are permissible even at the appellate stage, the Court directed the Patent Office to reconsider the matter afresh, issue a new hearing notice, and decide the application within three months.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.VE.SHANMUGAM V. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [Crl.O.P.No. 9691 of 2025]
Criminal proceedings initiated against Petitioner, a Member of Parliament, who was accused of defaming the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during a public speech at a political protest was quashed.
The Court held that the impugned speech did not incite public disorder but reflected political dissatisfaction without malicious intent. The speech being political dissent protected under Article 19(1)(a), did not constitute defamation. It was further noted that the complaint, based solely on transcripts and media reports without eyewitnesses or sworn testimony, was unsustainable and amounted to an abuse of legal process.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
TEHSEEN POONAWALLA V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR [SLP(CRL.) NO. 7550/2019]
The Supreme Court quashed the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s direction imposing ₹10 lakh costs on Tehseen Poonawalla and co-petitioner Vishal Dadlani after the FIR against them for tweets criticizing a Jain monk was dismissed. It held that once the High Court found no offence was made out, it should have followed the rule of cost to follow event. Held, in the absence of an offence, imposing costs lacked jurisdiction and amounted to moral policing. The petitioners’ right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a), was reaffirmed.
DELHI HIGH COURT
M/S KOHINOOR SEED FIELDS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. VEDA SEED SCIENCES PVT. LTD. [ CS(COMM) 828/2022]
The Court dismissed Kohinoor Seed Fields’ trademark suit against Veda Seeds for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Though Kohinoor’s head office is in Delhi, the Court held that the cause of action arose in Telangana, where Kohinoor also had a subordinate office. Mere listing of infringing products on e-commerce platforms like IndiaMart, without targeting Delhi customers, was insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be established through clever drafting.
Significant Judgments
DELHI HIGH COURT [FAO(OS) (COMM) 41/2025]
The Division Bench set aside an interim injunction granted in favor of Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) against Azure Hospitality, holding that PPL, not being a registered copyright society, could not engage in the business of licensing public performance rights. PPL, though a valid assignee of copyright under Section 18 of the Copyright Act, was found to be operating a licensing business without the mandatory registration required under Section 33(1). The Court emphasized that Section 30 permits copyright owners to license their works individually but does not authorize large-scale commercial licensing without registration. It held that allowing PPL to issue licenses without being registered would defeat the legislative intent behind Section 33 and the tariff regulation introduced by Section 33A to curb monopolistic practices. However, to balance equities at the interim stage, the Court modified the injunction by permitting Azure to play PPL’s repertoire at RMPL tariff rates.
Subsequently in PPL’s SLP filed against the Division Bench’s judgement, the Supreme Court stayed the directions contained in paragraph 27 while clarifying that the Single Judge’s injunction would remain inoperative during the pendency of proceedings.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, [SLP (C) 28062 of 2024]
Gujarat High Court’s decision restoring Inox’s copyright infringement suit against Cryogas and LNG Express was upheld by the Supreme Court. The case involved allegations of unauthorized use of Inox’s Proprietary Engineering Drawings and associated literary works. It was clarified that the determination of whether such works qualify as “designs” under the Designs Act, and thus fall outside copyright protection of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, involves complex factual and legal questions unsuitable for summary rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The judgment clarifies that Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act necessitates an inquiry before denying protection and such determination can’t be made at the threshold stage. It laid down a two-pronged test: (i) assess whether the work is a purely artistic work or an industrially applied design derived from it; and (ii) if not copyrightable, determine the dominant purpose—artistic or functional. This judgment affirms the necessity of a trial to adjudicate nuanced issues at the copyright-design interface, preserving the scope of IP protection and providing much-needed jurisprudential clarity.
DELHI HIGH COURT [CS (COMM) 773 OF 2023]
An interim relief was granted to the Plaintiff in a copyright infringement suit concerning the classical composition “Shiva Stuti” (SS), originally composed by the Junior Dagar Brothers (Plaintiff’s late father and uncle). The plaintiff alleged that the song “Veera Raja Veera” (VRV) from Ponniyin Selvan 2 (film) was composed, produce and sung by the Defendants, substantially copied SS. It was held that VRV was not merely inspired by SS but incorporated identical Swaras (notes), Bhava (Emotion) and Aural impact (impact on the ear), especially perceptible to a lay listener. Accordingly, the Court directed the defendants to deposit ₹2 crores and awarded ₹2 lakhs as litigation costs, recognizing a prima facie case of copyright infringement, subject to the outcome of the trial.
The said interim order has been stayed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in an appeal filed by the Defendants.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Disha Sharma, Surabhi Pande, Aniruddh Bhatia, Kuber Mahajan Srishti Dhoundiyal, Rimjhim Tiwari, Ishi Singh, Mehr Sidhu and Abhinav Bhalla.
