Bulletin 28 | August 2025
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court vacated an ex parte ad interim injunction granted in relation to the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered mark “STELLADEXIN” by the Defendants, who were selling induction cooktops under the “STELLA” mark. The Court noted that Defendant No.5, Stella Industrial Co. Ltd., was the prior adopter and continuous user of “STELLA” and “STELLADEXIN” in India since 2013, predating the Plaintiff’s use or registrations. Finding the Plaintiff merely a reseller of Defendant No.5’s goods and relying on S. 34 and international exhaustion under Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court held that Defendants’ authorized import and resale of genuine Stella products did not amount to infringement.
DELHI HIGH COURT
In a recent judgment, the Court dismissed a S. 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner sought security of USD 2.77 million for alleged losses from repudiated coal contracts. The Court held that correspondence and exchanges through WhatsApp and email can constitute a valid arbitration agreement, rejecting respondents’ contention otherwise. However, it ruled that Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction and damages claims being unliquidated cannot justify interim security or attachment.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Setting aside an IPAB order that granted the Geographical Indication (GI) ‘PISCO’ exclusively to Peru, the Delhi High Court held this to be a case of ‘homonymous GIs’. The Court found that the beverage from Chile is also historically and globally identified as ‘PISCO’. It ruled that GI law focuses on geographical identification, not trademark principles like prior use. To prevent consumer confusion, the Court directed that Peru’s GI be modified to ‘Peruvian PISCO’ and allowed Chile’s application to proceed.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court restrained misuse of Reliance Retail’s “Tira” trademark in financial scams, observing that the Defendants used multiple mobile numbers to defraud consumers. Defendants allegedly impersonated Reliance using fake gift cards, COD cancellations, and false payment claims, defrauding 8,919 consumers of over ₹41 lakh in two months. An ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted in a ‘real-time’ manner, directing suspension of such mobile numbers, related WhatsApp accounts, and UPI/QR codes.
DELHI HIGH COURT
In a suit concerning infringement of the Plaintiff’s Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) relating to Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), the Court held the Defendant to be an unwilling licensee. Held, Plaintiff had prima facie established essentiality of the asserted patents under ISO standards, which the Defendant had not contested during negotiations. Applying the Two-Step test in Intex v. Ericsson, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s SEPs were infringed and directed a pro tem deposit calculated from the date when the Defendant’s first sale was made which implemented the Plaintiff’s asserted SEP and at the rate initially offered by the Plaintiff for a license.
Significant Judgments
DELHI HIGH COURT [2025: DHC: 5036-DB]
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court entertained Amazon Technologies Inc.’s appeal against an ex parte money decree of ₹336 crore passed by the Single Judge in a trademark infringement action concerning apparel under Amazon’s “Symbol” brand allegedly bearing a logo deceptively similar to Lifestyle’s “Beverly Hills Polo Club.” While Cloudtail admitted liability and settled for ₹4 lakhs, ASSPL was deleted from the proceedings, being a marketplace intermediary. However, Lifestyle unilaterally pursued damages against Amazon Technologies, inflating its claim from ₹2 crore to ₹3780 crore without amending pleadings or issuing notice. The Division Bench noted these glaring procedural and substantive infirmities—absence of pleadings, enhancement of claims without amendment, failure of summons, and defective service—and granted an exceptional stay of the decree without predeposit. The Court disagreed with the Single Judge’s reading of the license (whereby the ‘Symbol’ word mark was licensed to Cloudtail) and clarified that a licensor is not liable for a licensee’s infringing acts absent proof of authorisation or complicity.
DELHI HIGH COURT, [CS(COMM) 376/2024]
An interim injunction was granted restraining the Defendants against using in any manner, any biosimilar of Plaintiff’s Nivolumab (ZRC3276), covered by the suit patent. Defendants were also restrained from launching any product manufactured during the subsistence of the patent even after expiry of the patent. The Court noted that:
- Opposition Board Recommendation is only recommendatory and not binding on Controller or Court;
- The claim language “specifically binds” allows for high-affinity binding and does not imply “only” or “exclusive” binding;
- Defendant’s own regulatory and trial filings admit ZRC-3276 is a biosimilar with the same sequence as Nivolumab;
- Doctrine of equivalents/literal infringement applies, and pith and marrow test is satisfied by function, way, result.
- Doctrine of “clearing the way” applies as the Defendant had knowledge of suit patent and pending proceedings but proceeded at their own risk;
- If infringing goods are manufactured during patent term (before expiry), their sale/use post-patent expiry can still be injuncted.
DELHI HIGH COURT [RFA OS (COMM) 22/2019]
The Division Bench allowed the appeals filed by Crocs Inc. and Dart Industries challenging orders whereby the Single Judge had dismissed six suits as non-maintainable, and an interim injunction application respectively, on the ground that proprietors of registered designs cannot simultaneously maintain an action for passing off in respect of the same subject matter. While interpreting the Full Bench decision in Calsberg, it was concluded that the very same subject matter can constitute the basis of the claim of design infringement, as well as the claim of passing off since the two are independent causes of action. Further, the Mohan Lal judgement did not contain the legal formulation that an action for passing off can lie, at the instance of the proprietor of a registered design, only if the subject matter of the passing off action is “something more” than the design which stands registered. As such, no such principle could be read into the Calsberg judgement which merely approves the larger legal formulation in Mohan Lal. Accordingly, the suits were restored for trial.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Ishi Singh, Kuber Mahajan , Mehr Sidhu, Abhinav Bhalla, Pushpit Ghosh and Sankalp Arya.
