Bulletin 31 | Nov 2025
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
In a suit filed by actor Hritik Roshan, the Court restrained entities from creating disparaging content and consequently misusing the actor’s personality for monetary gains.
It was held that the misuse of Artificial Intelligence tools for creating deep fakes, face morphing, GIFs, and other content for commercial gains was a clear violation of Plaintiff’s personality rights.
While recognizing actor’s personality rights, the Court clarified that only infringing content shall be removed from the social media, not entire profiles.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Division Bench of Delhi High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order therein refusing interim relief and restrained the respondents from using the mark “WOW BURGER.”
The Court held that WOW MOMO, WOW MOMO INSTANT and WOW DIMSUMS constitute a family of marks with “WOW” as the dominant prefix. It was found that the use of “WOW BURGER” for similar goods creates initial-interest confusion and infringes the appellant’s registered marks under Section 29(2)(b).
An injunction was accordingly granted.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Court vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction, observing that the Plaintiff was granted exclusivity over the sale of said goods, basis of its disclaiming exclusivity over “DOCTOR” and “SOFT” under Class 25, was only limited to the State of Maharashtra, and the defendant’s prior use of the impugned marks.
Accordingly, the bench dismissed the suit with costs of 50 Lakhs on the Plaintiff for suppression of material facts relevant to the adjudication of the matter.
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
MR. SWAPAN DEY V. CCI & ANR., COMPETITION APPEAL (AT) NO. 5 OF 2023
The appellant alleged that Vifor, the patentee of the anaemia drug Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM), abused its dominance by making FCM inaccessible and expensive. The CCI closed the case under Section 26(2), holding there was no prima facie foreclosure.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that issues relating to patent licensing and exploitation fall primarily under the Patents Act, not the Competition Act. Relying on the Delhi High Court’s Ericsson v. CCI ruling, it concluded that CCI lacked jurisdiction to examine such patent-related competition allegations.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that an action for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”) and a suit for patent injunction may co-exist, as each has an independent cause of action and the earlier statutory bar in the 1911 Act was removed in the Act.
Atomberg had filed a groundless threats suit in Bombay after Eureka initiated a patent infringement suit in Delhi. Both parties sought transfer, and the Court transferred the matter to Bombay.
Significant Judgments
Supreme Court of India (2025 INSC 1256)
The Court delivered clarity on the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act in matters involving intellectual property infringement. It was observed that:
- Continuing infringement inherently constitutes urgency, as each infringing act gives rise to a fresh and ongoing cause of action. Delay in initiating proceedings does not dilute urgency when the wrongful act persists and continues to harm the rights holder.
- In cases of intellectual property infringement, requiring pre-institution mediation may leave the plaintiff remediless, enabling the infringer to continue unlawful exploitation during the mediation period.
- Therefore, suits seeking urgent interim injunctions against ongoing IP violations fall within the statutory exception to Section 12A.
Setting aside the High Court’s rejection of the plaint, the suit was restored for adjudication on merits, establishing that IP owners are entitled to immediate judicial protection against continuing infringement.
DELHI HIGH COURT [2025:DHC:9079]
The Delhi High Court dismissed an SEP suit, filed by Philips for audio compression technology in VCD. The patent was expired in 2010 and only question that remained was of damages and infringement. The Court noted that the claim mapping (for SEP infringement) was insufficient as Plaintiff did not show precisely how its system was practiced by defendants or how all essential steps were covered.
Furthermore, it was noted that claim mapping, expert evidence, and detailed proof of how every claim element is present in the accused process/product are required, especially in SEP/standard-compliance cases. Mere correspondence, licensing talks, or non-specific admissions by defendants are not admissions of infringement.
The Court also noted that doctrine of equivalents applies only where it is shown that “substantially the same result is achieved in substantially the same way”, which was not established, and thus no injunction was granted and no damages awarded.
Madras High Court (2025: MHC:2437)
The Court considered a Section 9 application seeking protection of 3,532.30 XRP coins held on the WazirX crypto platform, which were frozen following a July 2024 cyber-attack that resulted in loss of ERC-20 tokens. Despite the arbitration clause designating Singapore as the seat under SIAC Rules, the Court held the petition maintainable, relying on PASL Wind Solutions and noting that the applicant’s crypto assets were held and accessed within India, thereby falling within the proviso to Section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act.
A detailed analysis of the legal character of cryptocurrency was taken up by the Court, concluding that virtual digital assets qualify as “property” capable of ownership and being held in trust, referring to Internet & Mobile Association of India v. RBI, Ruscoe v. Cryptopia (NZHC), and comparative jurisprudence.
The Court also noted a similar Bombay High Court finding rejecting the “socialisation of losses” theory, observing that losses relating to ERC-20 tokens cannot be imposed on holders of unrelated assets like XRP.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Ishi Singh, Mehr Sidhu, Abhinav Bhalla, Pushpit Ghosh and Sankalp Arya.
