TRADEMARK
AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS SECURES INTERIM RELIEF
In a significant ruling, the Delhi HC has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd. (Plaintiff) in a trademark infringement case against a fraudulent entity operating under the name “Agarwal Cargo Packers and Movers” (Defendant). The Plaintiff, a well-established name in the logistics and relocation industry with a decades-long reputation, alleged that the Defendant’s use of a deceptively similar name and domain “aggarwalmoverspackers.in” was intended to mislead consumers and unlawfully capitalize on the Plaintiff’s brand equity. The HC found that such imitation was likely to cause confusion and damage to the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.
Justice Amit Bansal held that there was a clear prima facie case of infringement and passing off. The HC noted that the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff, and restrained the Defendant from using any mark deceptively similar to ‘Agarwal Packers & Movers.’ Additionally, the HC ordered the suspension of the fraudulent domain, deactivation of related phone numbers, and the blocking of the UPI ID used for deceptive practices.
1. Agarwal Packers And Movers Ltd vs. Aggarwal Cargo Packers And Movers And Ors (CS(COMM) 338/2025)
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF ‘CAPTAIN BLUE’ TRADEMARK
In a major win for Diageo Scotland Limited, the Delhi HC has directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the ‘Captain Blue’ mark from its records. Diageo, renowned for its ‘Captain Morgan’ rum brand and its various sub-brands like ‘Captain Morgan Gold’ and ‘Captain Morgan Dark Rum,’ had approached the court arguing that the ‘Captain Blue’ trademark, filed by Prachi Verma under Class 33 for alcoholic beverages, created deceptive similarity. Diageo asserted that it has been using the ‘Captain’ brand extensively in India since 2006, with 2023 sales reaching approximately $6.48 million, thereby establishing strong goodwill and consumer recognition.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, after hearing the arguments, ruled in Diageo’s favor, observing that Diageo is the prior user and registered owner of the ‘Captain’ trademark. The HC held that simply adding the word ‘Blue’ did not sufficiently differentiate the impugned mark from Diageo’s established branding, and that the Assistant Registrar had failed to properly consider this point. Consequently, the HC directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the ‘Captain Blue’ mark from the registry.
1. Diageo Scotland Limited vs. Prachi Verma & Anr; C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 7/2025
COPYRIGHT
AR RAHMAN ORDERED TO DEPOSIT RS. 2 CRORE IN COPYRIGHT CASE
In a significant ruling, the Delhi HC has ordered music maestro A.R. Rahman and Madras Talkies to deposit Rs. 2 crore with the court registry pending the final disposal of a copyright infringement suit. The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by classical vocalist Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, who claims that the film’s track “Veera Raja Veera” is a copy of “Shiv Stuti,” a composition by the late Junior Dagar Brothers.
Justice Prathiba Singh, in an interim order, observed that to an untrained ear, Rahman’s song appears “not just inspired but is, in fact, identical” in its musical notes, emotional resonance, and overall sound to the original “Shiv Stuti.” The HC deemed this an infringement of the original composers’ copyright. The HC further directed the filmmakers to revise their credits and acknowledge the Junior Dagar Brothers on all online platforms featuring the film and awarded Rs. 2 lakh as legal costs to the Dagar family.
While Rahman’s legal team argued that “Shiv Stuti” is a traditional Dhrupad piece in the public domain, the court rejected this, stressing the striking similarities between the two works and the importance of safeguarding original compositions within classical music.
COPYRIGHT
SC HALTS DELHI HC ORDER REQUIRING AZURE TO PAY PPL FOR MUSIC USE
The SC has stayed a key directive from the Delhi HC’s division bench in the ongoing copyright dispute between Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and Azure Hospitality. The division bench had earlier ruled that PPL cannot issue licenses for its sound recordings unless it is registered as a copyright society or is part of one. However, in the same order, it directed Azure to make payments to PPL as per the tariff set by the registered copyright society, RMPL, if it wished to use PPL’s sound recordings.
In its latest order, the SC stayed this specific direction for payment but clarified that this does not revive the earlier interim injunction granted by the single judge, which had restrained Azure from using PPL’s copyrighted works. As a result, Azure is not currently obligated to pay PPL or stop using its music. The case is now set for further hearing on 21st July 2025, as the SC has issued a notice to Azure to respond to PPL’s special leave petition.
1. Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited; SLP(C) No. 10977/2025
PATENT
HALOZYME SUES MERCK OVER KEYTRUDA SUBCUTANEOUS
Biotechnology firm Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. (Halozyme) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Merck) in U.S. District Court in New Jersey. Halozyme alleges that Merck’s Subcutaneous (SC) formulation of its cancer medicine, Keytruda, infringes multiple patents protecting Halozyme’s MDASE subcutaneous delivery technology.
According to Halozyme, these patents, filed starting in 2011, cover their innovative MDASE hyaluronidase technology that enables rapid, high-volume subcutaneous drug delivery. Merck, following the completion of phase 3 clinical trials of SC Keytruda, has publicly stated its intention to launch the product in 2025. Halozyme claims Merck has utilised its MDASE technology to develop SC Keytruda without obtaining the necessary commercial license. Halozyme is seeking damages and an injunction to prevent the alleged patent infringement.
miscellaneous
BOMBAY HC: COMMENTING ON HAIR, SINGING SONG, NOT SEXUAL HARASSMENT
The Bombay HC, in a recent ruling, stated that commenting on a female colleague’s hair and singing a song about it does not automatically constitute sexual harassment in the workplace. Justice Sandeep Marne, in an order dated 18th March, granted relief to a senior executive of a private bank, asserting that even if the allegations were true, a “concrete inference” of sexual harassment couldn’t be drawn. This decision overturned the Pune Industrial Court’s dismissal of the executive’s appeal against his bank’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report, which had found him guilty under the POSH Act.
The complaint alleged that the executive commented on the woman’s hair and sang a song referencing it, and in a separate instance, made a remark about a male colleague’s private parts in front of female colleagues.
The HC noted that the complainant didn’t initially perceive the hair comment as sexual harassment, pointing to subsequent positive WhatsApp exchanges between her and the executive. Concerning the second incident, the HC highlighted that the complainant wasn’t present when the remark was allegedly made, and it wasn’t directed at her.
1. Vinod Narayan Kachave v. The Presiding Officer (ICC) & Anr. WP. No. 17230 of 2024
