Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: December 01–07, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025 Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC & Anr. v. Assistant Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 76/2022 Rajeev KP v. Unais KK, FAO No. 118 of 2025 Izuk Impex v. M/s Five Star Health Care LLP, TM 1450/16 Mir Mahamood Ali v. Mir Mukkaram Ali, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 458 Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Sunanda Greentech Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 1271/2025 Bignet Solutions LLP v. Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 1094/2025 Ganraj Enterprises v. Land Mark Crafts Ltd. & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 164/2022 Kailash Masala Industries v. Organic Khandeshi Food Products, AO No. 44 of 2023 Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. & Anr., CS(COMM) 565/2025 Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., FAO(OS)(COMM) 66/2025 Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Sangeetham House of Veg, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 467 Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemco Plast, IA No. 2165/2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 80/2024 Edible Products (India) Ltd. v. Shalimar Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., FMAT No. 189 of 2024 ITC Ltd. & Anr. v. Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd., CS(COMM) 119/2025 Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV v. Partha Chatterjee, CS(COMM) 1302/2018 Parul Ruparelia & Anr. v. Camme Wang & Anr., IA GA-COM/1/2025 in IP-COM/11/2025 Exotic Mile Pvt. Ltd. v. DPAC Ventures LLP, Commercial Appeal No. 617 of 2025 Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460 Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Mythri Movie Makers, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 466 Ajay @ Vishal Veeru Devgan v. The Artists Planet & Ors. STATUTORY UPDATE Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025 Centre Revamps Patent Penalty Rules; Appeal Period Now Begins On Receipt Of Order Instead of Date Of Order The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025 substitute Chapter XIV-A and modify timelines for adjudication of penalties. Appeals must now be filed within 60 days from receipt of the order. All communications must be electronic and adjudicating officers must issue digitally signed, reasoned orders. HIGH COURT REPORTS Patents Act, 1970 Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Patent For Amylin and AstraZeneca's Sustained-Release Diabetes Injection Case Title: Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC & Anr. v. Assistant Controller of Patents Case No.: C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 76/2022 The Court upheld refusal of a patent for a sustained-release exenatide formulation, finding it obvious in light of prior art. It held the differences from D1–D4 were bridged by routine experimentation and failed the “technical advance” test under Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla. The Patent Office's 2018 decision was affirmed. Delhi High Court Rejects Novo Nordisk's Injunction Plea, Allows Dr. Reddy's to Manufacture and Export Semaglutide Case Title: Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. Case No.: CS(COMM) 565/2025 The Court found a credible challenge to validity of IN'697, as semaglutide was disclosed in Novo's prior genus patent IN'964. It allowed manufacture and export but restrained sale in India until IN'964's expiry. Trade Marks Act, 1999 Kerala High Court Grants Interim Protection To 'Bokashi Bucket' Mark, Bars Sale Of Identical Compost Bins Case Title: Rajeev KP v. Unais KK Case No.: FAO No. 118 of 2025 The Kerala High Court restrained rival trader from using the “Bokashi Bucket” mark, finding the marks and goods identical to registered mark. The Court followed Renaissance Hotel Holdings ruling that improper use requires injunctive protection. It restored the interim relief denied earlier by the District Court. Delhi Court Lets Izuk Impex Challenge Validity of Health-Care Firm's '5 STAR' Trademark Case Title: Izuk Impex v. M/s Five Star Health Care LLP Case No.: TM 1450/16 The Court permitted challenge to the validity of the “5 STAR” mark under Section 124, holding the plea prima facie tenable. It rejected objections on delay and withdrawal, noting earlier cancellation petitions were dismissed without prejudice. Delhi High Court Restrains Two-Wheeler Manufacturer From Using 'Destiny' Marks Similar To Hero Motocorp Case Title: Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Sunanda Greentech Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: CS(COMM) 1271/2025 An ex-parte injunction was granted restraining use of “Destiny,” “Destiny+,” and variants for two-wheelers. The Court found structural and phonetic similarity with Hero's “Destini” marks and held the adoption deceptive and misleading. Delhi High Court Affirms Order Declining Cancellation Of 'HP' Mark Opposed By 'HP+' Screw Manufacturer Case Title: Ganraj Enterprises v. Land Mark Crafts Ltd. & Anr. Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 164/2022 Dismissing the appeal, the Court held Land Mark a prior user since 2006 and found no evidence of continuous use of “HP+” by Ganraj Enterprises. It held territorial constraints on one registration cannot be read into...

Intellectual Property Rights Weekly Round-Up: December 01–07, 2025

Ayushi Shukla

Tags