TRADEMARK
MILMA AWARDED ₹1 CRORE AS DAMAGES
Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (Plaintiff) established in 1980, filed a suit in the Commercial Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking a perpetual prohibitory injunction, damages, and infringement of its registered mark “MILMA,” and its variants, against Jose George (Defendant). The Plaintiff claimed that “MILMA” is a coined term derived from “milk” and “marketing,” and has been in use since 1983. In September 2021, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant’s engagement in processing, packaging, and selling milk under the mark “MILNNA”.
The Court observed that the Defendant’s mark was deceptively similar in style, name, and visual elements to the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks. Recognizing the distinctive and coined nature of the Plaintiff’s mark and its strong market goodwill, the Court found that the Defendant’s use of the infringing mark had caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation and business. Accordingly, it issued a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using the “MILNNA” mark and directed him to pay ₹1 crore in damages, along with 6% interest and the costs of the suit.
1.Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v. Jose George; C.S.No. 169/2022
TRADEMARK
BOMBAY HC RESTRAINS ‘SOCIAL TRIBE’ FROM INFRINGING ‘SOCIAL’ TRADEMARK
The restaurant chain ‘SOCIAL’ filed an interim application before the Bombay HC against a restaurant operating under the name ‘SOCIAL TRIBE’, seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off. SOCIAL contended that the use of a deceptively similar mark infringes upon its registered trademark rights. SOCIAL has been operating over 50 outlets across India since 2001, with a cumulative turnover exceeding ₹1,500 crores, and holds more than 100 trademark registrations for various ‘SOCIAL’ formatives across multiple classes, including Class 43 for restaurant services. A cease-and-desist notice was issued to SOCIAL TRIBE in July 2022, which went unanswered.
SOCIAL TRIBE failed to appear despite several opportunities, leaving SOCIAL’s pleadings unrefuted. After comparing both marks, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the SOCIAL’s registered trademark was “copied in its entirety” with the suffix ‘TRIBE’ not changing the infringement attempt. The HC noted that the SOCIAL TRIBE’s pink, orange, and yellow color scheme was deceptively similar to SOCIAL’s registered marks, with identical services provided. The Court granted injunctive relief restraining SOCIAL TRIBE from using, manufacturing, selling, distributing, advertising any products bearing SOCIAL’s trademark variants and prohibited passing off goods or business as connected with SOCIAL.
1.Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Social Tribe, I.A. (L) No. 7092/2024
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC GRANTS INTERIM INJUNCTION TO DOMINO’S AGAINST ‘DONITO’S’
Domino’s IP Holder LLC and Jubilant FoodWorks Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against M/s MG Foods, seeking a permanent injunction for using the deceptively similar mark ‘DONITO’S’ for pizzas and burgers across six outlets in Punjab. Domino’s IP Holder LLC owns the IP under Domino’s Pizza LLC, while Jubilant FoodWorks Limited holds exclusive franchise rights in India, acting as a single economic entity for IP enforcement.
M/s MG Foods had applied to register the ‘DONITO’S’ word and device marks under Class 30, which were “accepted and advertised,” though Dominos reserved their right to oppose. The Delhi HC’s Justice Anish Dayal granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, noting a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm. M/s MG Foods was restrained from advertising, selling, or promoting any products under marks identical or deceptively similar to Dominos, and was directed to remove all infringing device marks from its domain within one week. The matter is next listed for 15.10.2024.
1.M Dominos IP Holder LLC v. MG Foods, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4381
TRADEMARK
BOMBAY HC SETS ASIDE REFUSAL OF YAMAHA’S ‘WR’ TRADEMARK
Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha challenged a May 2021 order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, which refused registration of its ‘WR’ trademark under Class 12, citing a likelihood of confusion with Honda Motor Company’s existing ‘WR-V’ mark. The Registrar relied on Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, noting both marks covered vehicles, including motorcycles. Yamaha argued that its ‘WR’ mark, used for motorcycles since August 1990 in over 131 countries, was distinct from Honda’s ‘WR-V’ used for cars, and that both marks had coexisted internationally without confusion. The Registrar opposed the petition, maintaining that ‘WR’ was not sufficiently distinguishable from ‘WR-V’ and upheld the application of Section 11(1).
Justice Manish Pitale of the Bombay HC observed that while a bare comparison may suggest similarity, the Registrar failed to consider Yamaha’s longstanding international use and reputation. The Court held the refusal order to be “cryptic” and inadequate, and accordingly set it aside. It directed the Registrar to re-examine the application and proceed with public advertisement under Section 20(1), allowing objections, and acknowledged that similar marks may coexist under special circumstances.
1.Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 650 OF 2022
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HC GRANTS SUPERLATIVE INJUNCTION AGAINST ROGUE STREAMING APPS
Star India Pvt. Ltd. filed a copyright infringement suit against four named and several unknown defendants for unauthorized streaming of its content, later filing seven impleadment applications to include three new mobile apps and sixteen rogue domains illegally broadcasting the IPL and India’s England Tour. Star sought real-time blocking of such rogue websites and apps, arguing that the need to repeatedly approach the Court upon discovery of new infringers undermined enforcement during high-stakes sporting events.
The defendants failed to respond to the infringement claims, having engaged in unauthorized streaming through anonymous platforms. In response, Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi HC granted a first-of-its-kind superlative injunction, an enhanced form of dynamic injunction, providing real-time relief against infringing websites and, for the first time, mobile applications. The Court emphasized that in the digital era, infringers can rapidly generate mirror, alphanumeric, or redirect variants, making prompt intervention essential to prevent Star’s rights from becoming “otiose in the virtual world.” Significantly, the Court held that the mode of dissemination, whether through websites or mobile apps, was irrelevant when copyright infringement was established, thereby extending dynamic relief to rogue mobile apps and enabling real-time blocking across both mediums.
1.Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors., CS(COMM) 108/2025
COPYRIGHT
VADODARA COURT GRANTS INTERIM INJUNCTION TO INOX AGAINST CRYOGAS
Inox India Private Limited filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC against Cryogas Equipment Private Limited, alleging copyright infringement of proprietary engineering drawings, intellectual property, and literary works related to cryogenic and LNG semi-trailers. Inox claims it developed proprietary IP and technical drawings over 25 years through research and acquisition, discovering in August 2018 that Cryogas had copied its drawings for PESO approval, even retaining spelling errors from the original documents.
Cryogas countered that drawings were not artistic or literary works under the Copyright Act, and were based on standard engineering codes available in the public domain, and claimed independent sourcing from U.S.-based designer Ron Baker. Justice Priyanka Agarwal applied the two-pronged test under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act following SC direction in Cryogas Equipment v. Inox India, finding Inox’s proprietary engineering drawings qualified as both “artistic” and “literary” works under Sections 2(c) and 2(o). The Court noted substantial similarity between the drawings and evidence that former Inox employees, now with Cryogas, had copied drawings, including spelling errors, establishing a strong prima facie case. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining Cryogas from infringing Inox’s intellectual property rights and misusing confidential information until final disposal, finding refusal would cause irreparable loss, enabling unlawful benefit from Inox’s goodwill.
1. Inox India Private Limited v. Cryogas Private Limited, Trade Mark Suit No. 3 of 2019
PATENT
U.S. APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS $300M APPLE PATENT VERDICT
Optis Wireless Technology sued Apple in 2019 in the Marshall, Texas Federal Court, arguing iPhones and other products violated patent rights in LTE wireless standard technology. Optis claims that Apple infringed wireless standard-essential patents requiring fair and reasonable licensing terms. A jury initially awarded Optis $506 million in 2020, but U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered a new damages trial in 2021, finding that the award may not align with standard-essential patent licensing obligations, leading to a $300 million retrial verdict.
Apple challenged the verdict, arguing flawed jury instructions and an improper verdict form structure. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the $300 million verdict, remanding the case for a fresh trial on both infringement and damages after a three-judge panel found Judge Gilstrap had improperly combined all the patents into a single infringement question. The Court of Appeals ruled that a “single infringement question deprived Apple of its right to a unanimous verdict on each legal claim,” marking the second time a nine-figure patent verdict for Optis was overturned. Optis spokesperson said that the company remains “highly confident that the court will establish fair compensation for critical patents enabling high-speed connectivity,” while the UK court separately ruled that Apple owes Optis $502 million for infringing Optis’ UK wireless patents, with Apple planning to appeal the same.
1.Optis Cellular Technology LLC v. Apple Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 22-1925.
