Bulletin 27 | July 2025
Snapshots
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s copyright infringement suit, concerning songs from films produced by her late father, OP Ralhan. The Plaintiff contended that the assignment agreements signed between 1962 and 1980, were limited to physical formats and did not extend to digital media.
The Court held that the agreements assigned to the Defendant was wide-ranging rights in perpetuity, including for future media, using language such as ‘by any and every means whatsoever’. The Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument, emphasizing the unambiguous contractual terms and the Assignor’s continued acceptance of royalty for digital use.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Court dismissed TikTok’s petition, challenging the refusal to include “TikTok” in the list of well known trademarks, under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules.
The petitioner contended that the Registrar had failed to consider Sections 11(6)-(9) of the Trade Marks Act, and had erroneously relied on Section 9, asserting that the government-imposed ban on its application was immaterial, given the mark’s existing registered status.
The Court held that the Registrar was entitled to consider any relevant factor, including the continuing ban based on national security and data privacy concerns, which is within the scope of Section 11(6).
As the ban remains operative, the Registrar’s refusal to accord the mark well-known status was found justified.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court restrained RSPL Ltd. from airing certain expressions in its advertisements for ‘Ghadi’ detergent, finding them prima facie disparaging towards ‘Surf Excel’.
The Plaintiff alleged that four commercials launched by RSPL mimicked its blue packaging, referenced ‘XL Blue’, and echoed its tagline “Daag Acche Hai” through phrases like “Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai”.
The Court held that while comparative advertising is permissible, it cannot extend to tarnishment or defamation.
Consequently, RSPL was directed to remove three expressions –
- “Aapka kare badi badi baatein par dho nahi
paate”, - “Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai”, and
- “Na Na, yeh dhoka hai”.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by NewGen IT Technologies against an interim injunction order whereby the Ld. Single Judge restrained their use of NEWGEN trademarks. The Appellant asserted that such injunction would jeopardize its IPO launch. Held, that business disruption or IPO plans cannot override established trademark rights. The marks were held “strikingly similar,” likely to cause confusion, especially post-termination of a partnership with the Respondent. Further, the adoption of the NEWGEN marks by the Appellant, was not considered to be bonafide.
DELHI HIGH COURT
While hearing the interim injunction application for patent infringement of semaglutide (Ozempic – Plaintiff’s blockbuster weight-loss / type 2 diabetes and obesity drug), the Court took on record the Defendant’s statement inter alia with respect to continued manufacture, and export of the drug to countries where the plaintiff has not been granted a patent yet. The Defendant also undertook not to sell domestically, until they have regulatory approval. The Court is to further consider whether exports of alleged infringing products for commercial purposes/ stockpiling, amounts to infringement under the Patents Act, 1970, on the next date.
Significant Judgments
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT [Cr. MMO 242/2023]
The Court dismissed a petition filed by Dr. Ena Sharma, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent no. 2, for alleged copyright infringement involving medical X-ray images. The case arose from a complaint by Respondent No.2, who alleged that the petitioner had unauthorizedly used images in 2021, which were originally published by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in a 2017 article.
The Court held that reproduction of a substantial portion of copyrighted content, including medical images, in a subsequent publication may constitute infringement. It further clarified that copyright infringement is a cognizable offence, and criminal proceedings can be initiated by any third party—even where the copyright formally vests with the publisher.
Finding prima facie merit in the complaint, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, restating that copyright protection extends to medical research images and such disputes are subject to criminal investigation.
DELHI HIGH COURT, [2025: DHC:4819-DB]
The Division Bench set aside the injunction granted by the Single Judge and reaffirmed IndiaMART’s entitlement to safe harbour under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Bench, while setting aside the Single Judge’s order and allowing IndiaMART to retain “PUMA” option in drop-down menu, held that:
- IndiaMART qualifies as an intermediary under S.2(1)(w), IT Act and is merely creating subcategories for facilitating search.
- IndiaMART prima-facie did not initiate, select, or modify content and did not use PUMA’s trademarks for its own goods, but for product classification.
- IndiaMART providing an option for a seller to choose the brand of its products cannot be held to be aiding or abetting.
- There was no intent to promote/encourage counterfeit PUMA listings.
- Using PUMA’s mark in drop-down menus does not constitute trademark ‘use’ under S. 29 of the Trade Marks Act. Such use falls under S.30(1), TM Act, as honest commercial use.
MADRAS HIGH COURT W.P. NO. 6784/2025
PLAY GAMES 24X7 PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling Act. Petitioners argued that online real money gaming falls under Entry 31 of List I (Union List), limiting the State’s power to regulate such platforms, including restrictions on playing hours and age verification. However, the State contended that it has the authority under Entry 6 of List II (State List), as the issue pertains to public health and safety, emphasizing the health risks these games pose to the general public. The Court agreed with the State, holding that it can impose such regulations including limits on playtime and age verification. The Court also clarified that online real money games differ from non stake activities (e.g., OTT platforms) due to addiction risks, thus selective regulation is justified and not arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari , Kuber Mahajan, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Ishi Singh, Mehr Sidhu, Abhinav Bhalla, Pushpit Ghosh and Sankalp Arya.
