TRADEMARK
LENSKART CLAIMS USE OF TITAN TRADEMARK ACCIDENTAL
Indian eyewear brand Lenskart acknowledged the use of Titan Company Limited’s registered trademarks ‘Titan,’ ‘Titan Eye+’, and ‘Fastrack’ on its website and in meta tags but claimed it was an “inadvertent mistake”. Titan sued for trademark infringement, pointing out that the marks were visible in Lenskart’s website content and source code.
Lenskart further emphasized that there was no intent to infringe and took corrective steps to remove all infringing references. It also assured that any further instances flagged by Titan would be removed. Considering the admission and proactive response, the Delhi HC decreed the suit without awarding damages and recorded Lenskart’s undertaking.
1.Titan Company Limited v. Lenskart Solutions Private Limited & Anr. Case no.: CS(COMM) 589/2025
TRADEMARK
SAM ALTMAN RELEASES PRIVATE EMAILS AMIDST ‘IO’ TM BATTLE
IYO Inc., a California-based AI audio-hardware startup, has sued OpenAI for infringing its trademark “IYO” by using the branding “io” for hardware products. IO Products, founded by ex-Apple employees, was acquired by OpenAI in 2022. IYO Inc. filed the suit under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051) for trademark infringement and unfair competition in the Northern District of California.
The court granted a preliminary injunction restraining OpenAI from using “io,” and prompting its removal from OpenAI’s website. Thereafter, OpenAI opposed the injunction, arguing IYO Inc. does not use the mark in commerce and operates in a different market, eliminating the likelihood of confusion. The case drew public attention after Sam Altman posted emails between himself and IYO’s founder on X.
1.IYO, Inc. v. IO Products, Inc., 3:25-cv-04861, (N.D. Cal. Jun 09, 2025) ECF No. 1
TRADEMARK
BUS MANUFACTURERS RESTRAINED FROM USING VOLVO TMs
The Delhi HC restrained a bus manufacturer and two inter-city bus operators from infringing Volvo’s distinctive ‘grille slash’ trademark. The Swedish company, active in India since 1996, cited prior recognition of its mark as well-known by the Bombay HC. It claimed the defendants’ usage was identical and created confusion, amounting to passing off and reputational damage.
Justice Amit Bansal held that the defendants had deliberately copied Volvo’s design to benefit from its goodwill. One defendant admitted to manufacturing and selling 100–125 buses with similar logos. The court warned that unchecked infringement would encourage misuse and undermine the exclusivity associated with the Volvo brand.
1.Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors. Case no.: CS(COMM) 601/2025
COPYRIGHT
FAKE YOUTUBE CHANNEL REMOVED
The Delhi HC directed Google LLC to remove a fake YouTube channel using deepfake impersonations and news clippings of Anjana Om Kashyap, anchor and Managing Editor at Aaj Tak. TV Today Network Limited, operating Aaj Tak, filed a suit seeking the takedown of the “AnajanaomKashya” channel using Kashyap’s photographs and fabricated news content. Google has been directed to disclose the channel owner’s Basic Subscriber Information within two weeks and provide revenue details within four weeks. For future violations, Google must remove identified fake profiles within 72 hours or explain objections to the plaintiffs, who may approach the Court.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that fake profiles exploiting Kashyap’s goodwill and the news channel’s reputation violate personality rights and could cause enormous damage through misinformation lacking editorial control. The Court emphasized broadcasters’ responsibility to prevent the dissemination of incorrect or misleading news.
1.T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS, CS(COMM) 634/2
COPYRIGHT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT AGAINST META DISMISSED
A federal judge dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Meta by 13 authors, who accused Meta of stealing their work to train its AI technology. The authors alleged Meta used pirated books from online repositories to train its Llama AI system, while Meta argued that its AI-generated content was “fundamentally different” from the training materials and couldn’t substitute for reading original works. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the authors “made the wrong arguments” but emphasized the decision doesn’t validate Meta’s use of copyrighted materials, stating it was limited to these specific plaintiffs’ legal approach.
Judge Chhabria’s judgment suggested Meta and other AI companies may be “serial copyright infringers” and indicated that “in many circumstances it will be illegal to copy copyright-protected works to train generative AI models without permission.” He criticized arguments that copyright enforcement would hinder AI development, noting these technologies are expected to generate billions in revenue, making compensation feasible. The ruling contradicts Judge William Alsup’s judgment in (date) that found Anthropic’s training process constituted “fair use” while requiring a trial over illicit book acquisition methods.
1. RICHARD KADREY, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case 3:23-cv-03417-VC
COPYRIGHT
COPYRIGHT NOTICE TO MALAYALAM FILM “LOVELY”
The producer of SS Rajamouli’s 2012 superhit “Eega” has issued a copyright infringement notice to the recently released Malayalam film ‘Lovely’, for allegedly portraying a housefly character identical to their film. Hyderabad-based Vaaraahi Chalana Chitram alleged that “Lovely” reproduced and exploited the housefly character “visually” and “narratively” identical to their 2012 film protagonist. The notice demands immediate cessation of using the infringing character across all platforms, including theatrical, digital, satellite, DVD, and promotional materials.
The makers of “Lovely”, Western Ghats Productions and Neni Entertainments, have denied the charges and maintain that their 3D film tells the story of a young dreamer conversing with a housefly, contrasting with Eega’s revenge drama, where a murdered man reincarnates as a housefly to protect his lover and seek vengeance. The copyright notice also demands a complete account of all revenues earned from ‘Lovely’ and their remittance within seven days of receipt.
PATENT
OMNIACTIVE SUES BIO-GEN FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
OmniActive Health Technologies filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bio-gen Extracts in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging Bio Gen’s Lute-gen product infringes its U.S. Patent No. 10,532,035. The patent covers methods for supporting visual function using marigold-derived lutein and zeaxanthin isomers in specified amounts and ratios, representing what OmniActive termed a “breakthrough” in visual health support using naturally derived compounds.
OmniActive utilizes the patented methods in its flagship supplement Lutemax 2020, a clinically backed product delivering lutein and zeaxanthin isomers for health benefits. The Mumbai-based company seeks jury trial, damages, costs, willful infringement findings, and an injunction preventing Bio-gen‘s further infringement. Established in 2005 with offices in Mumbai and New Jersey, OmniActive emphasized protecting intellectual property rights to maintain its competitive advantage in the dietary supplement and functional food markets.
1.OmniActive Health Technologies, Ltd. V. Bio-gen Extracts Pvt. Ltd. Case No: 2:2025cv00652
