Bulletin 29 | September 2025
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
YATRA ONLINE LTD. v. MACH CONFERENCES & EVENTS LTD. [CS(COMM.) 1099/2024]
Yatra.com, an online travel booking company, filed a suit for infringement, passing off, and misrepresentation against the Defendant, who was preparing to launch a similar travel venture under the mark “BOOK MY YATRA.” The Plaintiff asserted rights over its “YATRA” formative marks, claiming continuous use since 2006, and sought an interim injunction.
The Court, however, held that the Plaintiff could not claim monopoly over the word “YATRA”, as it is generic and commonly descriptive in the travel and tourism industry. The Court noted that the Trade Marks Registry had, in fact, granted registration subject to the disclaimer “No exclusive right over the word YATRA.”
Accordingly, the Court found no prima facie case for interim injunction and declined to restrain the Defendant.
DELHI HIGH COURT
An appeal was filed against an order of the Trial Court whereby an application seeking condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the Written Statement, was allowed subject to imposition of cost of 25,000 per day ( 12 lakhs) based on an earlier cautionary order.
Challenging the order under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner contended that the delay in filing the Written Statement was bona fide, as it was caused due to the settlement talks between the parties.
The Delhi High Court found the cost onerous and disproportionate to the relief claimed. Held, the earlier order was only deterrent and condoned the delay without costs, directing the Written Statement to be taken on record as it was within the outer limit of 120 days.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Plaintiff, a writer, sought to restrain the exploitation of the movie titled ‘Dream Girl 2’, alleging breach of confidence and infringement of copyright in his literary work / script ‘Kal Kisne Dekha’, which was in the form of a ‘gender- disguise’ comedy.
After viewing the film and reviewing the script, the Court found material dissimilarities between the two works. The confidence claim failed for lack of precise identification of confidential information, originality, and proof of unauthorized use.
The Court held that the Plaintiff’s claim sought monopoly over unprotectable elements such as ideas, themes, and stock scènes à faire, and rejected the Plaintiff’s dissected, piecemeal comparisons.
The Plaintiff’s interim application was accordingly dismissed with costs of `2,00,000 (`1,00,000 each to D1 and D5).
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Natural Medicine Institute of Zhejiang Yangshengtang Co. Ltd. v. The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, (T) CMA (PT) No.171/2023
The Madras High Court set aside the order of the Ld. Controller wherein the Controller has rejected the patent application, even after approving the amended claims. The reason recorded for the rejection was that the claims filed were different than the approved claims. The Court remanded back the matter stating no other reason has been provided for rejecting the patent application, apart from stating that the amended claims do not tally with those approved by the Controller, which were virtually the same as granted in European Patent Office (EPO). The Court also noted that EPO decisions are not binding, but may be reckoned while adjudicating the patent application.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Apex Court recently dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against the Delhi High Court’s division bench ruling, which held that CCI lacks jurisdiction to examine actions of a patentee under the Patents Act, 1970. The Court noted that, in view of the settlement reached between the original complainants and the parties before the CCI, interference was unnecessary. However, the Court left the questions of law open, allowing them to be raised in an appropriate case.
Significant Judgments
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [SLP (C) No. 28489 of 2023]
The Court adjudicated the appeal arising out of a judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore) which dismissed the Appellant’s challenge to an order passed by the Commercial Court, Indore. The Commercial Court had rejected Pernod Ricard’s interim injunction application against the Respondent’s mark ‘LONDON PRIDE’, seeking to restrain the Respondent from infringing its mark ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’.
The Court, while dismissing the appeal and upholding the lower courts’ judgment, observed that:
- Words like “PRIDE” cannot be monopolized unless shown to have acquired secondary meaning.
- Trademarks must be compared as composite marks in their entirety, not by dissecting individual components (e.g., isolating “PRIDE”).
- The terms “BLENDERS” and “LONDON” are distinctive and dominant, giving the competing marks separate commercial impressions.
- Premium whisky consumers are reasonably discerning and unlikely to be misled or confused merely by the shared element “PRIDE.”
- No exclusive rights can be claimed absent the overall likelihood of confusion.
DELHI HIGH COURT, [ CS (COMM) 572 of 2020]
The Court adjudicated a contempt application filed by the Plaintiffs under O39 Rule 2A, CPC, alleging the continued copyright infringement by Alexandra Elbakyan, founder of Sci-Hub. The Plaintiffs, including Elsevier, argued that despite Elbakyan’s undertaking dated 24.12.2020 to not upload new copyrighted works, the investigations revealed that post- 2022 publications were made available on Sci-Hub and a new sister platform, Sci-Net. Evidence showed Sci-Net redirected users to Sci-Hub and allowed access to copyrighted works through cryptocurrency-supported systems, establishing it as an extension of Sci-Hub. The Court noted Elbakyan’s email, dated 15.08.2025, admitting to the availability of the plaintiffs’ works on both platforms and her attempt to distinguish Sci-Net from her undertaking. The Court held this as a willful breach, and classified Sci-Hub and Sci-Net as “rogue websites” under principles laid down in UTV Software v. 1337x.to. Given Alexandra’s non-participation and disregard for orders, the Court directed the Department of Telecommunications and MeitY to notify ISPs to block Sci-Hub (including its mirrors) and Sci-Net within 72 hours, with ISPs ensuring compliance within 24 hours.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [SLP (C) 25938 OF 2023]
The Apex Court set aside an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had rejected a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a dispute concerning premises leased to “Aditya Motors,” a proprietorship of Pilla Durga Prasad. By way of an amendment, the Appellant had deleted ‘Aditya Motors’ and impleaded the proprietor Pilla Durga Prasad in its place. As such, the High Court had held the suit not maintainable against a proprietor relying on Order XXX Rule 10, CPC and stated that the proprietorship concern ought to have been made a party.
The Supreme Court clarified that a proprietorship firm has no independent legal identity and is merely a trade name. Consequently, a suit filed against the proprietorship is, in substance, against the proprietor himself. Relying on Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar and Shankar Finance & Investments v. State of A.P., the Court held that impleading the proprietor suffices, and the technical objection raised was unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter to the trial court for adjudication on the merits, reiterating that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Ishi Singh, Mehr Sidhu, Abhinav Bhalla, Pushpit Ghosh and Sankalp Arya.
