Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: December 29, 2025 - January 04, 2026
NOMINAL INDEXSun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1799Meta Platforms Inc. v. Noufelmalol & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1801Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1804SNV Aviation Private Limited v. Alaska Aviation Academy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del)...
NOMINAL INDEX
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1799
Meta Platforms Inc. v. Noufelmalol & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1801
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1804
SNV Aviation Private Limited v. Alaska Aviation Academy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1805
Resham Priyadarshini v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 9/2025
A.O. Smith Corporation & Anr. v. Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CS(COMM) 532/2022
Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 765/2024
Hubei Ji Su Kan Dian Technology Co. Ltd. v. Lark Engineering Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 119/2021
Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Shri Swastik Organics & Ors., CS(COMM) 1393/2025
Network18 Media & Investments Limited v. Krishnaa @ Jagtar Singh & Ors., CS(COMM) 328/2024
Nippon Steel Corporation v. The Controller of Patents, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1
U.S. Green Building Council v. Deming Certification Services Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 2
Zydus Healthcare Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 3
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Controller General of Patents, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 4
Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons v. Karna Goomar & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 5
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Meghmani Lifesciences Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 4
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. & Ors. v. animesugez.to & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 6
Phonographic Performance Limited v. Trinetra Venture & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 5
Emitec Gesellschaft für Emissionstechnologie mbH v. Controller General of Patents & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 7
Konidala Pawan Kalyan v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors., CS(COMM) 1336/2025
Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors., CS(COMM) 1305/2025
K.V. Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara & Ors., C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 344 of 2025
HIGH COURT REPORTS
Patents Act, 1970
Delhi High Court Revives Inventor's Patent Application For Mechanical Folding Device
Case Title: Resham Priyadarshini v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 9/2025
The Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Patent Office refusing a patent application for an invention titled “A Device For Folding Or Bending An Article.” The Court held that the rejection was based on an incomplete reading of the application and that the Patent Office had failed to properly examine the dependent claims, drawings and detailed specifications. It found the conclusion on lack of inventive step to be unreasoned and abrupt and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Case Title: Nippon Steel Corporation v. The Controller of Patents
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1
The Delhi High Court set aside the Patent Office's refusal of Nippon Steel Corporation's patent application for a high-strength steel sheet and its manufacturing method. The Court held that an employment agreement entered into between the employer and the inventor constitutes valid proof of right under Section 7(2) of the Patents Act. It found the Patent Office's contrary view to be erroneous.
Delhi High Court Rejects Zydus Plea Against Helsinn's Nausea Medication Patent
Case Title: Zydus Healthcare Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 3
The Delhi High Court dismissed Zydus Healthcare's challenge to the grant of a patent in favour of Helsinn Healthcare SA. The Court held that the Patent Office had committed no jurisdictional error and clarified that pre-grant opposition proceedings are independent of the examination process. It ruled that an opponent has no right to participate in the examination stage.
Delhi High Court Upholds Order Rejecting Ericsson's Data Security Invention Patent
Case Title: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Controller General of Patents
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 4
The Delhi High Court upheld the Patent Office's rejection of Ericsson's patent application relating to a data security invention. The Court agreed that the claimed method lacked an inventive step and was obvious in light of prior art. It found no reason to interfere with the detailed reasoning recorded by the Patent Office.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Order Rejecting Emitec Emissions Dosing Device
Case Title: Emitec Gesellschaft für Emissionstechnologie mbH v. Controller General of Patents & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 7
The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection of Emitec's patent application for a reducing-agent dosing device used to cut vehicle emissions. The Court held that the Patent Office had failed to apply the mandatory five-step test for examining inventive step. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Case Title: Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 765/2024
The Delhi High Court declined to grant interim relief restraining Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling foldable display units, holding that no prima facie case was made out in favour of the patent holder. The Court observed that the validity of the patent was credibly challenged and reiterated that the grant of a patent does not carry a presumption of validity.
Trade Marks Act, 1999
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1799
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Biodeal Pharmaceuticals from using the marks “PEPFIX-DSR” and “MINOZIL,” finding them deceptively similar to Sun Pharma's registered trademarks. The Court noted that Biodeal had failed to contest the suit and held that use of the impugned marks was likely to mislead consumers.
Delhi High Court Disposes Meta's Execution Plea, Notes Compliance In “FACEBAKE” Trademark Case
Case Title: Meta Platforms Inc. v. Noufelmalol & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1801
The Delhi High Court disposed of an execution petition filed by Meta Platforms after recording substantial compliance with an earlier decree restraining use of the “FACEBAKE” and “FACECAKE” marks. The Court noted that infringing outlets had been rebranded and clarified that the permanent injunction would continue to operate.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1804
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief restraining Dr Reddy's from manufacturing sunscreen products bearing the word “SUN.” The Court held that the use appeared to function as a trademark rather than a descriptive term and directed maintenance of status quo.
Delhi High Court Stops Fake Job Recruitment In Akasa Air's Name, Orders Blocking Of Domains
Case Title: SNV Aviation Private Limited v. Alaska Aviation Academy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1805
The Delhi High Court restrained misuse of the “AKASA” and “AKASA AIR” marks for alleged fake recruitment activities. The Court also directed suspension of domain names, bank accounts, and mobile numbers used in the scheme.
Delhi High Court Bars “Star Smith” Name And Domain For Infringing A.O. Smith Trademarks
Case Title: A.O. Smith Corporation & Anr. v. Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 532/2022
The Delhi High Court restrained use of the trade name “Star Smith” and the domain “starsmith.in,” holding them deceptively similar to A.O. Smith's registered marks and likely to confuse consumers dealing in identical products.
Case Title: Hubei Ji Su Kan Dian Technology Co. Ltd. v. Lark Engineering Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 119/2021
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification plea seeking removal of the “LARK” trademark. The Court held that the registered proprietor had shown bona fide use and that related software services fell within services of the same description under the Trade Marks Act.
Case Title: Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Shri Swastik Organics & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1393/2025
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the manufacture and sale of biscuits sold under the name “Little Hearts” with an identical heart-shaped design. The Court found the adoption to be dishonest and likely to mislead consumers.
Delhi High Court Bars Misuse Of Moneycontrol Name For Running Fraudulent Investment Schemes
Case Title: Network18 Media & Investments Limited v. Krishnaa @ Jagtar Singh & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 328/2024
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained misuse of the “Moneycontrol” name for running fraudulent investment schemes. The Court ordered continued blocking of WhatsApp accounts and mobile numbers linked to the activity.
Delhi High Court Bars Use Of “IGBC” Name Over Similarity With US Green Building Council Mark
Case Title: U.S. Green Building Council v. Deming Certification Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 2
The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Deming Certification Services Pvt. Ltd. from using the marks “International Green Building Council,” “IGBC,” or any deceptively similar mark, holding that such use infringed the registered trademarks of the U.S. Green Building Council. The Court found that the defendant's marks closely imitated the dominant features of the plaintiff's marks, including the overall stylisation and placement of design elements and were likely to mislead the public into believing an association.
Delhi High Court Cancels “ACTIVEPUSHPA” Trademark For Similarity With Ayurvedic Brand “HEMPUSHPA”
Case Title: Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons v. Karna Goomar & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 5
The Delhi High Court ordered removal of the “ACTIVEPUSHPA” trademark from the register, holding it deceptively similar to the ayurvedic brand “HEMPUSHPA.” The Court observed that similarity in medicinal products could directly impact consumer health.
Bombay High Court Rejects Interim Injunction Sought by Sun Pharma Against “RACIRAFT” Rival “EsiRaft”
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Meghmani Lifesciences Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 4
The Bombay High Court refused to restrain Meghmani Lifesciences from using the mark “EsiRaft,” holding that it was not deceptively similar to Sun Pharma's “RACIRAFT.” The Court vacated an earlier ad-interim injunction.
Copyright Act, 1957
Case Title: Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. & Ors. v. animesugez.to & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 6
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte dynamic+ injunction restraining piracy websites from hosting copyrighted films and television shows belonging to global entertainment companies, including Warner Bros and Netflix.
Bombay High Court Bars Restaurant Chains Operating 94 Outlets From Playing PPL Music Without License
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Trinetra Venture & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 5
The Bombay High Court restrained restaurant operators from publicly playing music from PPL's repertoire without a licence, holding that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was made out.
Madras High Court Refuses To Halt Release Of Parasakthi Movie Over Allegations Of 'Stolen Script'
Case Title: K.V. Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara & Ors.
Case No.: C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 344 of 2025
The Madras High Court declined to restrain the release of the film “Parasakthi,” holding that the interim relief sought travelled beyond the scope of the main prayer and that delay disentitled the claimant to injunctive relief.
Personality Rights
Case Title: Konidala Pawan Kalyan v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1336/2025
The Delhi High Court passed a John Doe order protecting the personality rights of Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan against unauthorised commercial use of his name, image, voice, and likeness.
Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Protecting Personality Rights Of Actor NTR Junior
Case Title: Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1305/2025
The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to actor NTR Junior, holding that unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality attributes amounted to a violation of his personality rights.