Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: December 15-21, 2025

NOMINAL INDEXDPIIT Working Paper on Generative AI and CopyrightFrankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/S Fly High Institute & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1713Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Priyanka Alpeshbhai Polara, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1715Au Naturel Beauty Private Limited v. Wet and Dry Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1716Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v. Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., IA No. 1663/2021 in Commercial IP Suit No. 215/2021Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1722Air India Ltd. v. Girish Basrimalani, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 439/2022Onesto Labs Private Limited v. Manishaben Bhaveshbhai Narigara & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1725Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kartar Industries, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1726Malkit Singh Proprietor Makhan Fish Corner v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1732ITALFARMACO SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 488Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 491Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Dharma Production Private Limited, IA(L)/41013/2025 in COMIP(L)/40870/2025Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. v. Lotus Refinery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Commercial IP Suit No. 99/2012Surinder Kumar v. Rahul Khanna, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1742Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Fundamental Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., IA(L) No. 35432/2025 in Commercial IP (L) No. 35330/2025Punjab FC Private Limited v. Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1747Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1712Regi Mathew v. Major A.K. Raveendran & Ors., Commercial Suit No. 404/2021POLICY DEVELOPMENTCopyright Act, 1957Centre Proposes Mandatory Blanket Licence for AI Training on Copyrighted Works, Royalties for CreatorsThe 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 REPORTSTrade Marks Act, 1999Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Rival Aviation Institute From Infringing Frankfinn's “FLY HIGH” TrademarkCase Title: Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1713The 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 ClubCase Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Priyanka Alpeshbhai PolaraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1715The 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 DryCase Title: Au Naturel Beauty Private Limited v. Wet and Dry Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1716A 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 DisputeCase Title: Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1722The 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.Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Sale Of FOXTEEL Hair Products Over Similarity With Bare Anatomy Trade DressCase Title: Onesto Labs Private Limited v. Manishaben Bhaveshbhai Narigara & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1725The 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.Delhi High Court Orders 'HERO' Mark Infringer To Pay ₹2.5 Lakh To NGO For Obstructing Court-Ordered SearchCase Title: Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kartar IndustriesCitation:...

Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: December 15-21, 2025

Ayushi Shukla

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: December 15-21, 2025

Ayushi Shukla

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers