TRADEMARK
BOMBAY HC STAYS FILM WITH TITLE “KARAN JOHAR”
The Bombay HC has upheld a decision by a single judge, refusing to lift a stay on the release of the film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan aur Johar.” The division bench affirmed that the movie’s title prima facie infringes upon filmmaker Karan Johar’s personality and publicity rights. This ruling came in response to an appeal filed by the film’s producers against the single judge’s order issued on March 7th, 2025, which had dismissed their plea to vacate the initial interim stay granted in June 2024.
The HC reiterated its view that using “Karan Johar” in the title and promotions could mislead the public into believing Johar was associated with the project. While the filmmakers subsequently sought permission to release the movie with an updated title, the HC directed them to approach the single judge for any such modifications.
TRADEMARK
NIKE WINS V/S COUNTERFEIT APPAREL MANUFACTURER
A Delhi District Court (Tis Hazari) has delivered a decisive win for global sportswear brand NIKE, granting it a permanent injunction against a wholesale manufacturer and supplier (Defendant No. 2) engaged in the production and distribution of counterfeit apparel, bearing NIKE’s protected trademarks and logos. The lawsuit, initiated by NIKE to address trademark and copyright infringement and passing off, and seeking rendition of accounts, saw a prior settlement with the retailer (Defendant No. 1).
The Court’s judgment was significantly informed by the findings of a court-appointed Local Commissioner who executed a search and seizure at Defendant No.2’s premises in Panipat. The Commissioner’s report detailed the discovery of a substantial quantity of counterfeit NIKE-branded items, including lowers, shorts, t-shirts, jackets, alongside a large volume of infringing labels and packaging materials. The report also noted instances of obstruction and threats encountered by the Local Commissioner during the execution, underscoring the scale of the illicit operation.
In its ruling, the Court issued a permanent injunction, effectively barring Defendant No. 2 from manufacturing, selling, distributing, or dealing in any goods that infringe upon NIKE’s registered trademarks or utilize deceptively similar marks and logos. Recognising the infringement and potential harm to NIKE’s brand integrity, the court directed Defendant No. 2 to pay ₹800,000 in damages to NIKE, in addition to covering the costs of the suit.
1. Nike Innovate C.V vs Kotton Club; CS (COMM) 534/2020
TRADEMARK
MYSORE SAREE UDYOG WINSOVER MYSORE SILK UDYOG IN TM BATTLE
The XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in a trademark infringement and passing off suit has ruled in favour of M/s. Mysore Saree Udyog LLP (Plaintiff), granting a permanent injunction against M/s. Mysore Silk Udyog (Defendant) for using the deceptively similar trademark “MYSORE SILK UDYOG.” The Plaintiff, a long-established textile and saree business with registered trademarks for “MYSORE SAREE UDYOG,” successfully argued that the Defendant’s mark was likely to cause confusion among the public, especially considering the defendant’s prominent use of “MYSORE SILK UDYOG” despite a prior compromise agreement.
The Court found that the mere substitution of “Silk” for “Saree” created a strong likelihood of passing off, allowing the defendant to potentially encash on the plaintiff’s established goodwill and reputation. The Defendant was ordered to cease using the infringing mark, surrender all related materials for destruction, and pay a lump-sum damage of ₹25,000 to the Plaintiff. The court, however, rejected the plaintiff’s claim for rendition of accounts due to insufficient evidence of significant financial loss.
1. M/s. Mysore Saree Udyog Llp vs M/s Mysore Silk Udyog (Manjunatha); 27 / 28 O.S.No.2976/2019
TRADEMARK
TM BATTLE OVER ‘OPERATION SINDOOR’
A flurry of trademark applications followed the recent military strikes dubbed ‘Operation Sindoor’, with at least 12 individuals and entities seeking rights over the term just days after the operation was made public. Notably, Reliance Industries’ Jio Studios initially filed for the trademark but later withdrew it, stating the application was made “inadvertently” by an unauthorized junior employee. The company emphasized that it had no intention of monopolizing a term that now symbolizes national valour.
Despite the withdrawal, others have rushed to claim the name for future use in films, web series, and entertainment-related projects. Applicants include a retired Air Force officer, a Mumbai-based industrialist, an advocate from Delhi, and creatives from Kochi and Surat, many citing non-commercial or patriotic motives. However, experts note that trademark law favours first actual use over mere application, and given the phrase’s national significance, exclusive rights may not be granted. Legal experts also caution that terms linked to historical or national events, especially ones that evoke strong public sentiment, may not qualify for exclusive trademark protection under Indian law.
COPYRIGHT
U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE REGISTERS OVER 1,000 AI-ENHANCED WORKS
The United States Copyright Office has registered more than 1,000 creative works that include artificial intelligence-assisted content, marking a significant moment in the evolving intersection of AI and copyright law. Assistant General Counsel Jalyce Mangum confirmed that registration is possible when AI is used to enhance human creativity rather than replace it. The key consideration is whether a human, not the AI, made the expressive choices in the final work.
Purely AI-generated content remains ineligible for copyright protection. However, works with human authorship where AI was used as a tool, such as for image enhancement, crowd removal, or video stabilization, can qualify. The Copyright Office’s ongoing investigation into AI and copyright is unfolding in a multi-part report. The upcoming third part, expected later this year, will address how AI models are trained and is anticipated to have far-reaching implications.
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HC STAYS INTERIM ORDER IN RAHMAN COPYRIGHT CASE
The Delhi HC has stayed the interim order against music director AR Rahman in a copyright infringement case filed by classical singer Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar. The case pertains to the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the Tamil film “Ponniyin Selvan 2” (PS2), which Dagar claims is a copy of the traditional Dhrupad composition “Shiva Stuti” by the Dagarvani musicians, the late Ustad Nasir Zahiruddin Dagar and Ustad Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar.
On Tuesday, a division bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul stayed the single judge’s order until May 23, 2025. The single judge, Justice Prathiba M Singh, had ruled that Rahman’s composition was “identical” to the Dhrupad piece and ordered the filmmakers to amend the song credits to include the names of the Dagar brothers. Additionally, she ruled that Hindustani classical compositions are entitled to copyright protection if they are original works.
While staying the order, the bench instructed Rahman to deposit ₹2 crore with the court’s registry within ten days, in compliance with the single judge’s ruling. The court clarified that this stay does not reflect any stance on the merits of the case, and the matter will be further heard on May 23rd, 2025.
PATENT
CALCUTTA HC SETS ASIDE REJECTION OF UPL’S PATENT APPLICATION
The Calcutta HC has set aside the rejection of UPL Ltd.’s patent application for a novel agrochemical composition, citing procedural lapses and failure to consider crucial scientific data. The invention related to a combination of fungicides, including succinate dehydrogenase inhibitors (SDHI), multi-site fungicides, and others, aimed at enhancing disease control and overcoming fungal resistance.
The Court found that the Patent Office failed to consider the full set of experimental data submitted by the applicant and wrongly concluded that the invention was a mere admixture under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. It held that even known components can form a patentable invention if they show a synergistic effect. Additionally, the failure to issue a Second Examination Report despite new prior art submissions was deemed a procedural violation. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to conclude the process within four months.
1.http://Upl Ltd V. The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark (IPDPTA/2/2025)
