TRADEMARK
RAJASTHAN AUSHDHALAYA’S APPEAL DISMISSED
Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Pvt. Ltd. appealed a decree passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge Bench of the Delhi HC in a trademark infringement case filed by Himalaya Wellness Company over the use of the mark “Liv‑333”. The HC had earlier granted a permanent injunction, finding the mark deceptively similar to Himalaya’s well-known liver health formulation “Liv.52”.
The appeal challenged both the similarity of the marks and procedural aspects of the original proceedings. However, the Division Bench upheld the earlier order, emphasizing that in the pharmaceutical sector, even minor similarities can lead to harmful confusion. Further, it noted that the prefix “Liv” was the dominant element in both marks, and the numerical difference (“333” vs. “52”) did not prevent deception. Finding continued use of the impugned mark despite an earlier interim injunction, the HC confirmed the award of ₹20 lakh in damages and ₹10.91 lakh in legal costs, citing willful infringement and the need to protect public health from misleading branding in medicinal products.
1.Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited vs Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr, RFA(OS)(COMM) 18/2025, CM APPL. 38556/2025, CM APPL. 38557/2025, CM APPL. 38558/2025 & CM APPL. 38559/2025
TRADEMARK
NO INTERIM RELIEF IN “SWAGATH” TRADEMARK DISPUTE
The Delhi-based restaurant chain Swagath (Plaintiff) has initiated two parallel legal proceedings before the Delhi HC against a Telangana-based hospitality enterprise (Defendant) operating under the identical name Swagath. The Plaintiff, known for its franchise-based restaurant operations across North India, has filed a civil suit seeking an injunction for trademark infringement, and a rectification petition, seeking cancellation of the Defendant’s registered mark. The Defendant, Hotel Swagath, has been operating since 1991 and holds a registered trademark under Class 43 since 2017.
The HC has issued summons in the civil suit and directed the Defendant to file its written statement and response to the interim relief application within 30 days. Further, it also issued a notice in the rectification petition, granting six weeks for filing a reply.
1.Swagath v. Hotel Swagath, CS(COMM) 652/2025 & M/S Swagath v. Dhanturi Hari Shankar & Anr. C.O. (Comm.Ipd-Tm) 150/2025
TRADEMARK
BIRKENSTOCK SECURES JOHN DOE ORDER
Footwear giant Birkenstock has approached the Delhi HC alleging that several unidentified Indian entities are engaged in the large-scale manufacture and sale of counterfeit sandals that closely imitate its registered designs. Birkenstock claimed that the infringing products violate its intellectual property rights under the Designs Act, 2000, Copyright Act, 1957, and Trade Marks Act, 1999.To support its claims, Birkenstock submitted photographic evidence captured by its private investigators showing the counterfeit goods and the premises where they were allegedly being manufactured and sold. After reviewing the prima facie material, the HC observed that the impugned products were visually identical to genuine Birkenstock footwear and had the potential to deceive consumers, constituting passing off, infringement, and dilution of brand identity. A confidential search-and-seizure order was also passed, directing appointed local commissioners to visit the identified locations, seize the infringing stock, and document the unauthorized activity.
1.Birkenstock IP GmbH V. Ashok Kumar(S)/John Doe(S) & Ors. CS (COMM) 531/2025
COPYRIGHT
PIRATED BLOCKBUSTERS MONETISED ON YOUTUBE
A joint investigation by The New York Times and Adalytics has revealed that full-length Hollywood films, including recent titles like Lilo & Stitch and Captain America: Brave New World, were illegally uploaded to YouTube, where they were monetized through ads and viewed by hundreds of thousands before being removed. The pirated videos, often altered through cropping, mirroring, or other tactics to bypass YouTube’s Content ID detection, are believed to have significantly impacted box office and streaming revenues.
Despite YouTube’s enforcement tools, the report found that infringers were able to generate ad revenue prior to takedown. YouTube acknowledged that rights holders are expected to monitor and act on unauthorized use but did not disclose the platform’s earnings from such content. The Motion Picture Association labeled the findings a serious concern, pointing to the persistent challenge of digital piracy in the evolving media landscape.
PATENT
XIAOMI ESCAPES INJUNCTION IN PATENT DISPUTE
Conqueror Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a patent infringement suit against the Indian subsidiary of Xiaomi Inc., a Chinese company (Xiaomi), before the Delhi HC, alleging that Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature infringes its patented “Communication Device Finder System” (Patent No. 244963). Xiaomi countered that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the essential elements of the patented system, such as auto-answer mode and ROM-based reinstallation, were present in its feature. The HC agreed with Xiaomi’s arguments, observing that these core technical components were missing from Xiaomi’s implementation. Further, it also cited an unexplained nine-year delay in initiating the suit and a lack of evidence on the patent’s domestic working, ultimately declining to grant interim relief. However, Xiaomi was directed to maintain and submit half-yearly sales records of the relevant products, preserving the possibility of compensation if infringement is established at trial.
1.Conqueror Innovations Pvt Ltd.vs Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd CS (COMM) 361/2023
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION
“PISCO” GI ALLOWED FOR BOTH CHILE AND PERU
Active Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G, a Peruvian industry body, challenged the registration of “Pisco” as a geographical indication (GI) by the Chilean producers. The matter concerned the co-existence of identical GIs for the same product, a grape based alcoholic beverage- originating from both Peru and Chile. The HC referred to articles 22.4 and 23.3 of the TRIPS agreement, which allows homonymous geographical indications i.e. identically named products from different countries, so long as there is no likelihood of consumer confusion.
The HC took judicial notice of the longstanding cultural and production differences between the two countries’ versions of Pisco and emphasised that geographical qualifiers like “Chilean Pisco” or “Peruvian Pisco” can eliminate ambiguity. Drawing on Indian precedents, including the recognition of both “Banglar Rasogolla”and “Odisha Rasagola” as separate GIs, the HC clarified that Indian GI law supports such coexistence, provided the labelling makes the origin explicitly clear.
1.Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G vs Union Of India & Ors. W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2021, CM 139/2022 & CM 59/2023
