TRADEMARK
BOMBAY HC REFUSES WELL-KNOWN STATUS TO TIK-TOK
TikTok Limited (Petitioner) filed a petition in the Bombay HC challenging the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent)’s order. This order had refused the Petitioner’s application for inclusion of the registered trademark “TikTok”, in the list of well-known marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules 2017. The Petitioner contended that the statutory provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rules were not properly considered by the Respondent while passing the impugned order. The Petitioner argued that elaborate material was placed before the Registrar to justify inclusion in the well-known marks list, yet no reference was made to this evidence in the refusal order. Further, the Petitioner claimed the only discernible reason for refusal was the government ban on the TikTok application, which they argued was a transient situation that should not prevent well-known trademark status.
The Respondent opposed the application, arguing that the ban on TikTok by the Government of India under the IT Act was a relevant factor for consideration. Justice Manish Pitale of the Bombay High Court dismissed TikTok’s petition. He held that the Registrar correctly considered the government ban as a relevant fact under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act. This section allows for the consideration of any fact deemed relevant for determining well-known trademark status. The Court found that the ban, imposed due to concerns about sovereignty, integrity, defense, public order, data privacy, and cybersecurity issues, constituted valid grounds for refusal. Additionally, the Court emphasized that factors under Section 11(6) are illustrative and not exhaustive, and the Registrar’s decision was justified given the ongoing ban and constitutional considerations regarding India’s sovereignty and public safety.
1.TikTok Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai & Anr., Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 10 of 2024
TRADEMARK
MONDELĒZ SUES ALDI FOR COPYING OREO, CHIPS AHOY PACKAGING
Mondelēz International, the makers of Cadbury, filed comprehensive trademark infringement suit against German supermarket chain Aldi, alleging “blatant” copying of packaging for major snack brands including Oreo, Chips Ahoy!, and Nutter Butter. Mondelēz claimed that Aldi’s store-brand products use similar packaging that “trades upon the valuable reputation and goodwill” of its established cookie and cracker lines. It showed side-by-side comparisons displaying alleged similarities in “packaging colors, fonts and symbols.”
Aldi defended its private label strategy emphasizing “low-priced private label products that resemble the look and feel of well-known brands.” Mondelēz argued these similarities are likely to “deceive and confuse consumers and dilute the distinctive quality” of its trade dress, noting it previously contacted Aldi about copycat products. The Court filing shows that while Aldi initially discontinued or modified some items, it has since “continued its patterns and practice” of alleged infringement. Mondelēz seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief to stop the distribution of disputed products as the fastest-growing U.S. grocer plans over 225 new store openings this year.
1.Mondelez International, Inc. and Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Aldi Inc, 1:2025cv05905
TRADEMARK
GOPAL SNACKS SECURES EX-PARTE ORDER
Rajkot-based Gopal Snacks Ltd initiated legal action in the Bombay HC against entities operating under the names ‘Gopendra’, ‘Shree Gopal’, and ‘Gops’, for trademark infringement, alleging that these defendants were using deceptively similar packaging and unlawfully exploiting the registered ‘Gopal’ trademark. The company discovered counterfeit goods in Mumbai, prompting them to file the suit in the Bombay HC. Gopal Snacks contended that the defendants were creating confusion amongst consumers through their deceptively similar branding and packaging designs, undermining the company’s established trademark rights. The company sought immediate legal intervention to prevent defendants from concealing or disposing of counterfeit products before enforcement action could be taken.
The Court granted an ex-parte order in favor of Gopal Snacks Ltd, authorizing comprehensive enforcement action against the trademark infringers and appointed authorities. To execute simultaneous raids across cities in a single day—four in Surat and one in Mumbai. The raids resulted in significant seizures of counterfeit goods and packaging materials.
TRADEMARK
OSWAAL DENIED REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARK “ONE FOR ALL”
Oswaal Books, a publisher specializing in educational materials for CBSE, ISC examinations etc, initiated legal action in the Delhi HC appealing against the rejection of its trademark application for the slogan “ONE FOR ALL.” The company contended that it had continuously, openly, and extensively used the trademark with tagline “ONE FOR ALL” and had gained significant popularity among consumers within a short span. Oswaal Books argued that the applied for mark was a unique combination of common words, inherently distinctive, and not a commonplace phrase, thus deserving trademark protection. The publisher sought to establish exclusive rights over the slogan for use in connection with its educational publications and materials.
The Registrar of Trademarks opposed the application, arguing that the applied for mark was devoid of distinctive character and comprised very common words that cannot be monopolized by any individual entity. Justice Mini Pushkarna of Delhi HC dismissed the appeal, holding that slogans, particularly descriptive or commonly used phrases, face a significantly high threshold for trademark registration, unless they acquire secondary meaning. The Court observed that merely placing a slogan prominently on goods or advertisements does not establish it as a source identifier unless consumers uniquely associate the phrase with specific goods or services. The Court noted that “ONE FOR ALL” references classic literature widely read and adapted across various media, and allowing monopolization of such common language expressions would restrict linguistic use, which cannot be permitted.
1.Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trademark; C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 19/2024
COPYRIGHT
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COPYRIGHT RULES FOR COPYRIGHT LICENSE FEES
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has released a draft notification proposing amendments to the Copyright Rules, 2013, with the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) inviting public comments and suggestions by July 5, 2025. The proposed Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2025 aim to streamline and digitize the process of paying license fees for copyrighted works, introducing greater transparency and efficiency in copyright licensing transactions. The core amendment involves the introduction of Rule 83(A) in Chapter XVIII of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which mandates an online payment system for certain copyright licenses. This specifically targets literary works, musical works, and sound recordings when communicated to the public, requiring owners or licensors to establish and maintain dedicated online payment mechanisms for collecting license fees from licensees.
The draft rules explicitly states that all payments of license fees must be processed exclusively through the mandated online system, with no alternative payment methods permitted or accepted for this purpose.
COPYRIGHT
DISNEY, UNIVERSAL SUES MIDJOURNEY AI
Major Hollywood studios, Disney and Universal, sue AI Image generator Midjourney for copyright infringement in the Federal Court in Los Angeles. The studios claim that the Midjourney pirated their libraries to generate “endless unauthorized copies” of their popular characters like Darth Vader and Minions. The studios further argued that Midjourney AI is “quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism,” stating “piracy is piracy” regardless of AI technology used, and alleged the San Francisco-based company ignored requests and notices to stop infringing copyrighted works.
Midjourney CEO David Holz previously defended the service as “kind of like a search engine,” comparing AI learning to human creativity and arguing copyright concerns should adapt similarly. Recording Industry Association of America supported the lawsuit calling it “critical stand for human creativity,” though noting partnership paths exist. The case joins growing litigation against AI platforms including OpenAI and Anthropic, while Getty Images pursues the first major generative AI copyright trial against Stability AI in London.
1. Disney et al v Midjourney, Inc, Case 2:25-cv-05275
PATENT
CONTROLLER DISMISSES ABBVIE’S APPEAL FOR PATENT AMENDMENT
AbbVie Biotherapeutics Inc. and AbbVie Inc., biopharmaceutical companies engaged in developing therapeutic products, initiated an appeal in patent court against the Controller’s refusal of their patent application concerning an anti-cMet antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) used in treating certain cancers. The application was submitted under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which included 137 claims, though none of the original independent claims pertained to the anti-cMet ADC product in isolation or as a pharmaceutical composition. The appellants amended their claims to encompass broader treatment applications, seeking to transform the nature from a method of treatment to patentable product claims. They contended that the amendments were permissible and would constitute valid product claims rather than non-patentable treatment methods under Indian patent law.
The Controller objected to the amended claims, arguing they constituted impermissible methods of treatment under Sections 2(1)(j) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, and violated Section 59(1) by expanding scope beyond the original claims. The court dismissed AbbVie’s appeal, upholding the Controller’s refusal and affirming that amendments cannot alter the fundamental claim nature from method to product, referencing the Ovid case precedent. The court emphasized that artificially broadening claims violates Indian patent law principles established in Novartis AG v. Union of India, concluding that the amendments failed to meet Section 59(1) requirements. The ruling reinforces strict adherence to patent amendment limitations, preventing claim scope expansion beyond the originally filed applications and maintaining the integrity of patent law provisions.
1.AbbVie Biotherapeutics Inc & Anr. V. Assistant Controller Of Patents Designs C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT)-44/2023
