Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Intellectual Property (IP) Laws

Intellectual Property (IP) Laws - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 Arbitrability of Trademark Disputes – Dispute between two factions of a Coimbatore-based family over the "Sri Angannan Biriyani Hotel" trademark. The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and ₹20 lakhs in damages for alleged trademark infringement. The respondent invoked an arbitration clause in the Trademark Assignment Deed, leading to referral to arbitration by the Commercial Court and High Court. Held: Not all trademark disputes are non-arbitrable; disputes in personam arising from contractual obligations, such as those under a trademark license or assignment deed, are arbitrable. Allegations of fraud, misconduct, or statutory violations do not preclude arbitration when the dispute stems from an arbitration agreement. Under Section 8, the referral court's role is limited to confirming the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, leaving substantive issues like claim validity or fraud to the arbitral tribunal. Under Section 11(6A), the court's role is confined to verifying the arbitration agreement's existence, not adjudicating the dispute's merits. Disputes arising from trademark licenses or assignments, being in personam, are arbitrable unless they involve in rem rights affecting the public. Judicial authorities must enforce arbitration agreements under Section 8 without discretion to bypass this mandate. The principle that subordinate in personam rights arising from in rem rights are arbitrable, as established in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, was reaffirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge, upholding the referral to arbitration. Petition dismissed; trademark dispute held arbitrable as it arose from an assignment deed. K. Mangayarkarasi v. N.J. Sundaresan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 597 : 2025 INSC 687 : AIR 2025 SC (Civil) 1802 : (2025) 8 SCC 299 Copyright Act, 1957; Section 15(2) - Designs Act, 2000 - Twin test to determine whether a work qualifies for protection under the Copyright Act or the Designs Act, 2000. Held, copyright protection for an artistic work ceases under Section 15(2) if the work is a design capable of registration under the Designs Act, remains unregistered, and is industrially reproduced more than 50 times. However, dismissal of a copyright suit does not automatically grant design protection, which requires separate evaluation. Cryogas Equipment v. Inox, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426 : 2025 INSC 483 Copyright Act, 1957; Section 15(2) - Designs Act, 2000 - Twin Test for Copyright-Design Conflict - (1) Nature of Work - (2) Functional Utility Test - Determine if the work is a purely artistic work under the Copyright Act or a design derived from such work and subjected to industrial processes, as per Section 15(2). If the work does not qualify for copyright protection, assess its dominant purpose. Works with primary functional utility, rather than aesthetic appeal, do not qualify for protection under the Designs Act. Cryogas Equipment v. Inox, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426 : 2025 INSC 483 Copyright Act, 1957; Section 15(2) - Designs Act, 2000 - The case arose from a 2018 lawsuit by Inox India Limited alleging copyright infringement by Cryogas Equipment and LNG Express India in engineering drawings for cryogenic semi-trailers. The Commercial Court dismissed Inox's suit under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, holding the drawings were unregistered designs reproduced over 50 times, falling under the Designs Act. The High Court reversed this, restoring the suit for trial. Cryogas appealed to the Supreme Court. Upholding the High Court's ruling, the Supreme Court criticized the Commercial Court's premature dismissal, which incorrectly assumed the drawings were designs without evidence of industrial reproduction or aesthetic nature. Determining the nature of the work involves a mixed question of law and fact, unsuitable for resolution at a preliminary stage. The case was remanded for trial to assess the true nature of the proprietary engineering drawings and related claims of literary works and confidential information infringement using the twin test. Appeal dismissed; Commercial Court directed to conduct a trial applying the twin test and independently evaluate all claims. Cryogas Equipment v. Inox, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426 : 2025 INSC 483 Copyright Act, 1957 – Sections 63, 65 - Victim - Appeal from convictions - Appeal in case of acquittal - Interpretation of 'victim' under Section 2 (wa) read with proviso to Section 372 CrPC - Whether Section 378 CrPC would prevail in cases where a company whose IPR were infringed, sought to appeal against acquittal - High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, stating that appellant was neither a complainant nor a victim before Trial Court – Held, 'victim' ...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Intellectual Property (IP) Laws

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags