TRADEMARK
BRIEF CONSUMER CONFUSION IS ENOUGH TO PROVE TM INFRINGEMENT
In a significant ruling on trademark protection, the Delhi HC held that even brief or momentary confusion in the mind of a consumer, is sufficient to establish infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This observation was made while granting interim relief to Under Armour, a US-based sportswear brand, in its appeal against an Indian company marketing products under the name ‘AERO ARMOUR’.
The HC reversed a prior decision, which had denied relief on the basis of the ‘Initial Interest Confusion Test’. The HC now emphasized that “the duration of the confusion in the minds of the customer is not material… even if it be momentary, it is sufficient to establish infringement.” It also underscored the particular vulnerability of well-known trademarks like Under Armour, stating that even brief confusion can unfairly divert consumer attention, especially when the products are similar and sold through identical platforms. As a result, the Indian entity was restrained from using the impugned marks or any deceptively similar variant pending final resolution of the suit.
1.Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr (FAO(OS)(COMM) 174/2024)
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC SETS ASIDE INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER
In a recent development in a high-profile family TM dispute, the Delhi HC set aside an interim order that had previously restrained the law firm Fox Mandal & Associates, led by Shuvabrata and Shouryabrata Mandal, from using the ‘FoxMandal’ trademark. The mark is claimed by their brother, Som Mandal, who operates the legacy firm Fox Mandal & Co. A Division Bench passed the order after hearing both sides and recording mutual consent, making it clear that the setting aside of the earlier injunction was without prejudice to either party’s claims.
The HC further directed Fox Mandal & Associates to file a response to Som Mandal’s application by 2nd June, 2025, with a rejoinder due by 5th June 2025. The commercial court has been asked to hear the matter on 6th June 2025, and adjudicate it without being influenced by the previously quashed interim order. The dispute traces back to 15th May 2025, when an order by District Judge had temporarily barred the use of the ‘FoxMandal’ name and logo by Shuvabrata and his firm, citing potential misrepresentation and brand dilution. However, with the interim order now nullified, the legal battle over the prestigious name continues.
1.Inder Fox Mandal And Associates & Anr V. Somabrata Mandal & Ors (Fao (Comm)-132/2025) And Shuvabrata Mandal V. Somabrata Mandal & Ors (Fao (Comm)-133/2025)
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HC CRACKS DOWN ON DEEPFAKE MISUSE
In a significant step toward protecting digital identity and curbing the misuse of artificial intelligence, the Delhi HC has issued a broad John Doe injunction restraining unidentified individuals from using the name, image, voice, or likeness of Ankur Warikoo, a prominent personal finance educator and digital content creator, through AI-generated deepfakes. The order comes in response to the growing circulation of manipulated videos falsely depicting the influencer endorsing dubious WhatsApp investment groups, which have reportedly misled users into financial traps and losses.
Acknowledging the gravity of the issue, the HC emphasized that the unauthorized use of a public figure’s persona not only infringes on personality and publicity rights but also exposes the public to deception and financial harm. The HC directed social media platforms, including those operated by Meta, to remove infringing content within 36 hours and mandated disclosure of information related to the creators of such content. The ruling highlights the judiciary’s repeated recognition of deepfake technology as a novel and serious threat to digital communication, particularly when it targets individuals whose public identity holds commercial and reputational value.
1.Ankur Warikoo v. John Doe (CS(COMM) 514/2025)
COPYRIGHT
SADHGURU MOVES COURT FOR PROTECTION OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS
Sadhguru (Jagadish Vasudev) has approached the Delhi HC seeking protection of his personality and intellectual property rights against unauthorized use of his name, image, and likeness by rogue websites and AI-generated content. As reported by LiveLaw, his counsel submitted that fake articles, allegedly quoting Sadhguru on topics like wealth generation, were fabricated using AI to promote fraudulent investment platforms such as ‘Trendastic Prism’. Additionally, his image was being misused to sell unrelated products, including a book titled ‘Garbh Yatra’, with which he has no association. The counsel argued that these actions amount to commercial exploitation and a clear violation of personality rights.
The HC acknowledged the challenges of curbing such online misuse and discussed mechanisms like dynamic plus injunctions to counter rogue websites. Google’s counsel stated that takedowns are initiated upon URL-specific reporting and require verification. The HC reserved its order and emphasized that while intermediaries can act upon credible reports, ongoing monitoring lies beyond their proactive scope.
1. Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev & Anr. V/s IGOR ISAKOV & Ors.; CS(COMM) 578/2025
PATENT
DELHI HC PARTLY RULES IN FAVOR OF PATENTEE
Dura-Line India Pvt. Ltd., (Plaintiff) a subsidiary of Dura-Line International Inc. (USA), filed a suit in April 2013 before the Delhi HC alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 199722 and Design Registration No. 192665. The patent covered a non-metallic pipe assembly embedded with a co-extruded tracer cable for traceability and leak detection. The Plaintiff claimed that Jain Irrigation’s (Defendant) products like “B-Sure PE and PP Sewerage Pipes” and “Jain Insta Tracer Pipes”, replicated essential features of the patented invention, violating its exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act. The Defendant denied infringement and challenged the patent’s validity, citing a lack of novelty and inventive step.
The HC ruled in favour of the Plaintiff on the patent infringement claim, but dismissed the design infringement allegation, finding no deceptive similarity due to differences in surface pattern and contour. Since the patent expired on 23rd July 2023, the HC did not grant a permanent injunction but acknowledged that the suit was filed prior to expiry. Under Section 108 of the Patents Act, the Plaintiff was granted relief in the form of rendition of accounts, limited to the period from April 2010 to July 2023.
1.Dura-Line India Pvt. Ltd. vs Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.; CS(COMM) 245/2017 & CC(COM)54/2017, I.A. 7004/2013
MISCELLANEOUS
ALLAHABAD HC QUASHES CHARGE SHEET
The Allahabad HC has quashed the charge sheet and summoning order in an online gambling case against Imran Khan and Irfan Khan, under Sections 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, citing procedural lapses. The HC held the investigation void ab initio, as the police initiated it without prior magistrate approval, a mandatory requirement under Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for non-cognizable offences. It emphasized that even intelligence driven action must comply with legal protocols, and failure to do so renders the proceedings legally unsustainable.
While quashing the proceedings, the HC granted liberty to the police to reinvestigate the case after following due legal process. It also criticized the outdated Public Gambling Act for its inability to address the complexities of modern online betting and gaming platforms, calling for urgent legislative reform. The HC directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to constitute a High-Powered Committee led by Prof. K.V. Raju, Economic Advisor to the State Government, to draft a comprehensive regulatory framework. The Committee, including the Principal Secretary (State Tax) and other domain experts, has been tasked with formulating suitable legislation, and the Registrar (Compliance) was instructed to forward the order to the Chief Secretary for necessary action.
1.Imran Khan & Anr. vs State of UP & Anr., Neutral Citation No. – 2025: AHC:7853
