Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: December 15-21, 2025
Ayushi Shukla
22 Dec 2025 2:39 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
DPIIT Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright
Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/S Fly High Institute & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1713
Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Priyanka Alpeshbhai Polara, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1715
Au Naturel Beauty Private Limited v. Wet and Dry Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1716
Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v. Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., IA No. 1663/2021 in Commercial IP Suit No. 215/2021
Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1722
Air India Ltd. v. Girish Basrimalani, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 439/2022
Onesto Labs Private Limited v. Manishaben Bhaveshbhai Narigara & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1725
Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kartar Industries, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1726
Malkit Singh Proprietor Makhan Fish Corner v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1732
ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Dharma Production Private Limited, IA(L)/41013/2025 in COMIP(L)/40870/2025
Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. v. Lotus Refinery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Commercial IP Suit No. 99/2012
Surinder Kumar v. Rahul Khanna, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1742
Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Fundamental Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., IA(L) No. 35432/2025 in Commercial IP (L) No. 35330/2025
Punjab FC Private Limited v. Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1747
Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1712
Regi Mathew v. Major A.K. Raveendran & Ors., Commercial Suit No. 404/2021
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Copyright Act, 1957
The DPIIT released a working paper proposing a statutory blanket licence permitting AI training on lawfully accessed copyrighted works subject to payment of royalties. The proposal rejects both fair dealing expansion and a commercial text and data mining exception. Public comments have been invited within 30 days.
HIGH COURT REPORTS
Trade Marks Act, 1999
Case Title: Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1713
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining use of the marks “FLY HIGH,” “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” and similar variants. The Court held that “FLY HIGH” constituted the dominant and source-identifying part of Frankfinn's marks and that consumer confusion was likely. The injunction will remain in force until March 16, 2026.
Delhi High Court Restrains Mumbai Apparel Brand Using Logo Similar To Beverly Hills Polo Club
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Priyanka Alpeshbhai Polara
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1715
The Delhi High Court restrained an apparel business from using polo player logos found to be deceptively similar to the Beverly Hills Polo Club brand. The Court granted ex-parte protection after finding prima facie dishonest adoption likely to mislead consumers.
Delhi High Court Allows Au Naturel Beauty To Rebrand NEUDE As BE NEUDE In Dispute With Wet and Dry
Case Title: Au Naturel Beauty Private Limited v. Wet and Dry Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1716
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court permitted Au Naturel Beauty to rebrand from “NEUDE” to “BE NEUDE.” The Court held that use of the new mark as a single expression would sufficiently distinguish it from the rival “NEUD” mark. It directed discontinuation of “NEUDE” from June 1, 2026.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹20 Lakh Costs On Instant Bollywood Founder In Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1722
The Delhi High Court imposed costs of ₹20 lakh after finding suppression of material facts relating to trademark ownership and prior knowledge of registrations. While holding the conduct to be improper, the Court declined to dismiss interim applications and noted prima facie acknowledgment of a 50% intellectual property right. Status quo on assignment was directed.
Case Title: Onesto Labs Private Limited v. Manishaben Bhaveshbhai Narigara & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1725
The Delhi High Court restrained manufacture and sale of FOXTEEL hair products after finding deceptive similarity with Bare Anatomy's trade dress. The Court noted identical packaging, identical goods and identical online trade channels. The injunction will remain in force until March 23, 2026.
Case Title: Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kartar Industries
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1726
The Delhi High Court directed payment of ₹2.5 lakh to HelpAge India and ₹2.5 lakh as costs and damages after finding obstruction of a court-appointed Local Commissioner. It permanently restrained the company from counterfeiting activities and held that interference with court processes cannot be tolerated.
Case Title: Malkit Singh Proprietor Makhan Fish Corner v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1732
The Delhi High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's order removing the “MAKHAN FISH CORNER” mark. It held that the decision was unreasoned and ignored material evidence. The rectification petition was remanded for fresh consideration without expressing any view on merits.
Delhi High Court Cancels Trademark Similar To Punjab Football Club Held By Apparel Company
Case Title: Punjab FC Private Limited v. Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1747
The Delhi High Court ordered removal of the “PFC” trademark after finding deceptive similarity and prolonged non-use. It held that the adoption appeared dishonest and likely intended to benefit from the football club's goodwill.
Case Title: Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1712
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining use of the mark “POWER FLEX” for footwear. It held that consumers were likely to perceive it as a sub-brand of Bata's “POWER” mark.
Case Title: Surinder Kumar v. Rahul Khanna
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1742
The Delhi High Court held that IPR disputes involving overlapping issues may be transferred and heard together even if pending before non-commercial courts. It clarified that the IPD Rules do not curtail the Court's powers under Section 24 of the CPC.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Kataria Insurance Brokers From Using 'KATARIA' Trademark
Case Title: Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v. Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: IA No. 1663/2021 in Commercial IP Suit No. 215/2021
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief restraining Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited from using the name “KATARIA INSURANCE” or any other mark containing the word “KATARIA” for insurance-related services. The Court held that such use was deceptively similar to the registered trademark of Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy. It observed that the word “KATARIA” had, over the years, come to identify a single source in the insurance sector and that the consultancy had established the ingredients required for infringement under the Trade Marks Act.
Case Title: Air India Ltd. v. Girish Basrimalani
Case No.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 439/2022
The Bombay High Court directed removal of the trademark “VISTARRAAH” from the Trade Marks Register after finding it deceptively similar to Air India's “VISTARA” airline brand. The Court held that the disputed mark was phonetically identical and visually and structurally similar to “VISTARA.”
Madras High Court Rejects Jaipur Restaurant's Co-Ownership Claim To 'Dasaprakash' Trademark
Case Title: Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
The Madras High Court refused to recognise a Jaipur-based company as a co-owner of the “Dasaprakash” trademark. The Court held that the mark was a jointly owned family trademark and that no valid assignment or transfer had taken place in favour of the company. It upheld a 2009 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting the request to record co-proprietorship.
Bombay High Court Bars Chandigarh Firm From Using Bunge India's 'LOTUS' Mark For Edible Oils
Case Title: Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. v. Lotus Refinery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Commercial IP Suit No. 99/2012
The Bombay High Court permanently restrained Lotus Refinery Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark “LOTUS” or any deceptively similar mark for edible oils. The Court held that adoption of an identical mark for identical goods amounted to trademark infringement and passing off of Bunge India's registered trademark. It found that the rival company's conduct demonstrated a clear intent to ride on the goodwill and reputation associated with Bunge India's brand.
Case Title: Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Fundamental Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: IA(L) No. 35432/2025 in Commercial IP (L) No. 35330/2025
The Bombay High Court refused to grant interim relief in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute involving the mark “HOM.” The Court held that no prima facie case was made out, noting that the acronym 'HOM' had not been shown to have acquired independent goodwill or public recognition. It further observed that both restaurants cater to a well-informed and discerning consumer base, making the likelihood of confusion unlikely.
Patents Act, 1970
Commercial Courts Act Bars Intra-Court Appeals In Patent Disputes: Madras High Court
Case Title: ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
The Madras High Court held that intra-court appeals are not maintainable against orders passed in statutory patent appeals. It ruled that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act bars such appeals and that Letters Patent jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
Copyright Act, 1957
Case Title: Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Dharma Production Private Limited
Case No.: IA(L)/41013/2025 in COMIP(L)/40870/2025
The Bombay High Court considered a plea alleging unauthorised use and remixing of the song “Saat Samundar Paar” in the forthcoming Hindi film without consent/license/payment of royalties. Replies were tendered and the matter was listed for further consideration on ad-interim reliefs. The production house sought injunctions and damages.
DISTRICT COURT REPORTS
Copyright Act, 1957
Case Title: Regi Mathew v. Major A.K. Raveendran & Ors.
Case No.: Commercial Suit No. 404/2021
The Commercial Court, Kottayam held that the film “Karmayodha” infringed copyright belonging to Regi Mathew. It declared Regi as the author and copyright owner of the story, script and screenplay and awarded ₹30 lakh as compensation.