TRADEMARK
J&J AWARDED ₹1.21 CRORE FOR “ORS-L” MARK INFRINGEMENT
Johnson & Johnson (Plaintiff) instituted a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi HC against several pharmaceutical companies (Defendants) for marketing electrolyte sachets under the mark “ERSI”, which allegedly mimicked the Plaintiff’s well-known product “ORS-L”. The Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants’ product used an identical packaging design, fruit imagery, color scheme, and brand structure that created an unmistakable association with its registered mark.
The HC, applying the “triple identity” test, found that the marks, goods, and trade channels were indistinguishably similar, leading to a strong likelihood of confusion. Consequently, it permanently restrained the Defendants and awarded ₹1 crore in damages and ₹21 lakh in legal costs. It also directed the withdrawal of the infringing listings from all physical and online platforms.
1.Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors., CS(COMM) 794/2023
TRADEMARK
E-COMMERCE PLATFORMS ORDERED TO DELIST FAKE “JIO” PRODUCTS
Reliance Industries Ltd. (Plaintiff) instituted a trademark infringement suit against several unnamed sellers and leading e-commerce platforms. The Plaintiff alleged that counterfeit FMCG products falsely bearing their “Reliance” and “Jio” marks were being listed online, creating consumer confusion and damaging the brand equity.
The HC found that the Plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case, observing that a failure to intervene would compromise consumer safety and the integrity of the trademark. Accordingly, the HC passed an interim order directing e-commerce platforms such as IndiaMART, Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, Snapdeal, MyDukaan and Vyapar Times to immediately delist the infringing listings and disclose all relevant seller details.
1.Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors., CS(COMM) 675/2025
TRADEMARK
DPIIT MOVES TO AMEND TRADEMARK RULES
In a policy development with potential systemic impact, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) under the Ministry of Commerce has initiated steps to amend the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The proposed amendments are aimed at streamlining trademark registration and reducing procedural delays, which have historically plagued the Indian IP registry. The suggested changes include shortening the opposition window from four months to two months, introducing online hearings as the default mode, and simplifying form-based compliance. The DPIIT has engaged with industry stakeholders, including representatives from the IP Bar and technology firms, to finalise the structure of the proposed reforms.
COPYRIGHT
TIPS FILMS WINS BLOCKING ORDER AGAINST ROGUE WEBSITES
Tips Films Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi HC alleging that multiple websites were illegally broadcasting its recent films Maalik and Sarbala Ji. The Plaintiff submitted that pirated versions of both titles were being streamed by 56 rogue domains without authorisation, causing irreparable commercial loss. The HC, satisfied with the urgency and nature of the case, granted an ex parte interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff. The order restrained the websites from broadcasting or distributing the said films and directed the Internet Service Providers to block access to all listed URLs. Further, it also permitted service of the order via email and other electronic means to ensure compliance and enforcement of its order.
1.Tips Films Ltd. v. HTTPS//0GOMOVIES.COM.TR/ & Ors., CS(COMM) 690/2025
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HC EXAMINES JURISDICTION IN MOHAK MANGAL’S CASE
Mohak Mangal, a social media content creator, filed a transfer petition before the Delhi HC seeking to shift the hearing of a copyright and defamation suit filed by ANI (Respondent) from Patiala House Courts to the HC’s commercial division. The original suit pertained to unauthorised use of ANI’s video footage and alleged passing off on YouTube. The HC questioned the maintainability of the petition before a single judge bench and clarified that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the commercial division under the Commercial Courts Act. The case was re-notified for further clarification.
1.ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohak Mangal & Ors., CS(COMM) 573/2025, Delhi High Court
PATENT
KROLL’S P2P TRACKING SYSTEM REFUSED PROTECTION
Kroll Information Assurance Inc. (Petitioner), a US-based cyber security firm, filed a writ petition before the Delhi HC challenging the refusal of its Indian patent application for a system designed to locate users sharing sensitive content on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. The Controller of Patents had rejected the application on grounds of non-compliance under section 59 of the Patents Act, citing lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, being a “computer program per se” and “algorithm”.
The HC upheld the Patent Office’s decision, ruling that the invention lacked technical advancement or integration with any hardware-based component. It reiterated that mere automation of known processes through software does not confer patentability unless accompanied by demonstrable technical effect.
1.Kroll Information Assurance LLC v. Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, C.A.(COMM.IPD‑PAT) 439/2022
miscellaneous
AXIS MAX LIFE OBTAINS INJUNCTION IN DARK WEB DATA LEAK CASE
Axis Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a petition before the Delhi HC against unknown cyber entities threatening to publish confidential customer data on the dark web. The Plaintiff alleged that personal data, including sensitive financial records of more than 2 million policyholders, had been unlawfully accessed and was being offered for sale via anonymous dark web forums. In response, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the publication, circulation, or sale of any confidential customer data belonging to the Plaintiff. Further, it also directed the blocking of the unknown entity’s (Defendant No.3) email account and ordered disclosure of all related technical identifiers, including email addresses, contact details, URLs, IP addresses, and access locations. Additionally, the unknown entity was instructed to permanently delete all physical and digital copies of the data and file an affidavit of compliance.
1.Axis Max Life Insurance Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., CS(COMM) 666/2025
miscellaneous
POSH ACT UNAPPLICABLE TO ADVOCATES COMPLAINT TO BAR COUNCIL
UNS Women Legal Association (Petitioner) filed a PIL before the Bombay HC seeking directions for the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (Respondents) to constitute Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) for addressing sexual harassment complaints under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Petitioner argued that women advocates, who frequently operate from chambers or court premises, are susceptible to workplace harassment and ought to be afforded institutional redressal mechanisms under the POSH Act. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that Bar Councils serve as regulatory bodies and do not engage advocates as their employees, within the meaning of Section 2(f) and 2(g) of the POSH Act. It further noted that the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules do provide disciplinary remedies under Section 35, which are adequate for addressing professional misconduct against women advocates.
1.UNS Women Legal Association v. Bar Council of India & Ors., PIL (St.) No. 16/2017
