TRADEMARK
‘RITZ’ AND ‘RITZ-CARLTON’ DECLARED AS WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARKS
Luxury hospitality giants, Ritz Hotel Ltd. (owner of The Ritz Paris), the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. (holder of the ‘RITZ-CARLTON’ marks), and the current global owner of ‘RITZ’ trademarks (collectively Plaintiffs), initiated legal action in the Delhi HC against MS Hotel Ritz and others (Defendants) for trademark infringement and passing off. In 2023, the Plaintiffs discovered the Defendants’ websites, ‘www.ritz-hotels.com and www.thehotelritz.com’ and upon further investigation confirmed that the Defendants were operating under the ‘RITZ’ mark and offering reservations via third-party travel platforms.
Justice Amit Bansal ruled in favour of the Plaintiffs, declaring both ‘Ritz’ and ‘Ritz Carlton’ as well-known trademarks under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The HC noted that the trademarks met the criteria under Sections 11(6) and 11(7), citing factors such as their long-standing use, global presence, public recognition, substantial goodwill, and significant revenue generation. The HC granted a permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants from further trademark infringement and ordered the immediate discontinuation of the disputed websites.
1.The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors., CS(COMM) 8/2025
TRADEMARK
MOKOBARA SECURES INTERIM RELIEF
Plaintiff Mokobara filed suit against Defendants M/s American Leather Works in the Delhi HC, alleging trademark infringement and passing off of its trade dress. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants were selling lookalike suitcases under the ‘Greenland’ brand name, replicating its distinctive rectangular shape, colour combinations, horizontal ridges, specific piping, and signature yellow-checkered lining with the letter ‘m’. The Plaintiff argued this constituted deceptive similarity and passing off. The Defendants failed to appear despite prior notice, offering no defence to the copying allegations.
Justice Amit Bansal granted ex parte interim relief, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement established. The HC noted Defendants had “meticulously copied distinct elements” with “no plausible justification” except an ulterior motive to misuse Plaintiff’s reputation. The HC issued interim injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or promoting the infringing suitcases while the case proceeds.
1.Mokobara Lifestyle Private Limited v. Mr. Fazal Mohamed Yakub Patka & Ors CS(COMM) 591/2025 with I.A.14388/2025, I.A.14389/2025 and I.A. 14390/2025
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC ALLOWS INDIAMART BRAND SEARCH OPTIONS
IndiaMART Intermesh Limited (IIL) has filed an appeal before the Delhi HC challenging a decision issued by a single-judge bench. The case originated from a lawsuit filed by PUMA against IIL, alleging that the platform’s practice of including “PUMA” and other registered trademarks as dropdown options, during seller registration amounted to a dishonest business practice. PUMA argued that this mechanism actively encouraged trademark infringement by enabling or facilitating the listing of counterfeit products. IIL argued it merely provided brand identification tools for legitimate business purposes without intent to encourage counterfeiting.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju partially overturned the single judge ruling, holding e-commerce platforms cannot be restrained from offering trademark search options in dropdown menus. The division bench found “no intent on the part of IIL to encourage listing of counterfeit Puma Products”. The HC clarified that platforms retain safe harbour protection under Information Technology Act for search functionalities but lose it if they fail to act against counterfeiting, after notification.
1.Indiamart Intermesh Ltd v. Puma Se FAO(OS) (COMM) 6/2024, CM APPL. 2216 & 2219 of 2024
COPYRIGHT
EMINEM SEEKS $109M FROM META
Eminem’s music publishing company, Eight Mile Style, the Plaintiff, filed a suit against Meta Platforms seeking $109 million in damages for alleged widespread copyright infringement of 243 songs across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The Plaintiff claimed “unauthorized storage, reproduction and exploitation” of the rapper’s catalogue without proper licensing, specifically targeting Meta’s original audio and reels features that “allow and encourage users to steal” music by incorporating tracks into video content.
The Plaintiff argued that the practice significantly diminished copyright value while generating unjust profits for Meta through increased user engagement and platform usage. The Plaintiff’s company demands either compensation for lost profits and diminished copyright value, or alternatively, maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed song across all three platforms, totalling $109,350,000. The case highlights ongoing tension between social media platforms’ user-generated content models and music industry copyright protection as features like Reels become central to engagement strategies.
1.Eight Mile Style, LLC; and Martin Affiliated, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., f/k/a Facebook, Inc.; Instagram, LLC; and Whatsapp, LLC, case 2:25-cv-11618-brm-drg
COPYRIGHT
GOVT. OPENS PUBLIC MEDIA ARCHIVES AMID ANI COPYRIGHT ROW
YouTube creators Mohak Mangal and Rajat Pawar alleged that ANI misused copyright mechanisms, demanding annual licensing fees up to Rs 18 lakh or penalty payments for using 9-11 second clips. The creators claimed ANI filed false copyright strikes, and the controversy escalated when ANI filed a defamation suit against Mangal in the Delhi HC. The HC directed the removal of allegedly defamatory portions from his videos, while the creators argued for fair use rights against commercial licensing demands.
ANI defended its copyright enforcement and licensing model for news content usage and India’s major public broadcasters including Prasar Bharati, All India Radio, Doordarshan National, and PIB announced free access to extensive content archives for social media use as “fully copyright-free and authorised.”
PATENT
ACTIVISTS PROTEST EPO PATENT ON VIRUS-RESISTANT TOMATOES
Breeders, gardeners, and environmental activists filed a joint opposition against the European Patent Office (EPO) over patent EP 3629711 covering naturally virus-resistant tomatoes at The Hague demonstration. Over 40 organisations protested the patent claiming tomatoes with Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus resistance as a “technical invention,” representing the first of 20+ similar applications by nine companies on conventionally bred varieties and demanding licensing fees of €50,000-€200,000, plus a 5% turnover from derived varieties.
EPO defended granting patents on conventionally bred seeds through disputed legal interpretations, despite European law prohibiting patents on plant varieties and conventional breeding processes. Protesters against the judgement brought 2-meter sculptures representing additional patent applications to highlight concerns about the monopolization of natural plant traits, demanding a binding interpretation of existing prohibitions to prevent larger companies from blocking future plant breeding developments.
