TRADEMARK
SC REJECTS PERNOD RICARD’S PLEA AGAINST ‘LONDON PRIDE’ WHISKY
Pernod Ricard, the maker of popular whisky brands such as “Blenders Pride,” “Imperial Blue,” and “Seagram,” had filed a trademark infringement suit against Karanveer Chhabra (Respondent) in the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Court, seeking an injunction against the Respondent’s use of the mark “London Pride” for country made whisky. Pernod Ricard claimed the use of the word “Pride” was deceptively similar and infringed upon its registered trademarks. The Commercial Court dismissed the plea, and it was later upheld by the HC, prompting an appeal to the SC. The SC dismissed the appeal, observing that there was no likelihood of confusion between the premium and ultra-premium brands of Pernod Ricard and the Respondent’s “London Pride.” The SC noted that the target consumers are discerning and unlikely to be misled by similarities in trade dress. It emphasised that the word “Pride” is publici juris commonly used in the liquor industry, and that the dominant elements in each brand name (‘Blenders’, ‘Imperial Blue’, and ‘London’) are visually and phonetically distinct and dismissed the plea.
1. Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another Versus Karanveer Singh Chhabra CA No. 10638 of 2025
TRADEMARK
PRIOR USE: NO DEFENSE IN INFRINGEMENT CASE
Bodhisattva Charitable Trust (Appellant), filed an appeal with the Delhi HC against a previous ruling made by a single judge in favor of Mayo Foundation (Respondent). The earlier court determined that the Appellant’s use of the mark ‘MAYO’ infringed the Respondent’s registered trademark, and granted an interim injunction against use of the same. In the appeal, the Appellant argued that they had been using the mark ‘MAYO’ since 1995, for over 13 years before their trademark registration, whereas. the Respondent has been using the word since 1992. The Court ruled that priority of usage is not a valid defense against a trademark infringement action. It stated that, “section 34 applies only when the defendant’s use of the infringing mark began before the plaintiff’s mark registration and its prior use”. Consequently, the HC dismissed the appeal.
1. Bodhisattva Charitable Trust and Ors. v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, FAO(OS) (COMM) 73/2024
TRADEMARK
NO APPROVAL FOR GPT-5 TRADEMARK IN CHINA
OpenAI, the US-based artificial intelligence company that created ChatGPT, filed multiple trademark applications with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), including marks for “GPT-4,” “GPT-5,” “GPT-6,” and “GPT-7.” All applications were rejected by the CNIPA, including the most recent application for “GPT-5.” The refusals were based on the finding that the applied for marks were descriptive in nature and lacked the requisite distinctiveness to qualify for trademark protection under Chinese trademark law.
TRADEMARK
ZEE ASKED TO RETHINK ‘DUNIYADARI’ LOGO IN TRADEMARK FIGHT
Living Media India Limited (Plaintiff -India Today Group) has instituted a trademark infringement case before the Delhi HC against Zee Media Corporation Ltd (Defendant). The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant launched a news segment with an identical name of its show titled ‘DUNIYADARI’ in Gurumukhi script. It alleged that the impugned mark is being used in respect of identical services and is targeted towards the same class of viewers, thereby causing a likelihood of confusion and deception among the public at large.
The Delhi HC has granted time to the Defendant to file its reply and has suggested to Zee to modify its logo to potentially avoid the suit. The Court clarified that a final decision would be rendered after the Plaintiff’s reply is filed in the matter.
TRADEMARK
TRADEMARK DEFEAT FOR FERRARI IN MALAYSIAN ENERGY DRINK CASE
Ferrari (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in the Federal SC of Malaysia against Sunrise Mark & others (Defendant), alleging infringement of its iconic rearing horse device mark. The dispute concerned the Defendants’ use of two rearing horses forming a ‘W’ within the WEE POWER energy drink trademark. The Plaintiff contended that the impugned mark substantially resembled its well-known rearing horse mark and was likely to mislead or cause confusion among consumers.
The Court dismissed the claim, holding that the competing marks were visually and conceptually distinct, thereby possessing sufficient independent character. Further, it was also held that mere imitation of certain elements of a trademark does not, per se, constitute an infringement. In support of its reasoning, the Court relied on Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention, emphasizing that the protection of well-known marks necessitates a contextual, multi-factor analysis rather than automatic enforcement.
TRADEMARK
BAYLOR UNIV SUES BOSTON UNIV OVER LOGO RIGHTS
Baylor University (Plaintiff) has instituted a trademark infringement action before the Federal Court in Waco, Texas against Boston University (Defendant). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is using the logo mark ‘BU,’ which is essentially identical to and/or confusingly similar with the Plaintiff’s registered trademark. The Plaintiff states that a cease-and-desist notice was issued, but instead of ceasing its use of its adopted mark, the Defendant significantly expanded the use of the impugned mark.
The Plaintiff registered its trademark in 1987, and in 1988 the parties entered into a coexistence agreement governing their respective use of ‘BU’. The agreement permitted both parties to use the letters ‘BU,’ provided that the Defendant’s usage was limited to configurations such as side-by-side or on a horizontal plane. However, the Plaintiff contends that the agreement conferred no right to use an identical interlocking stylized ‘BU’ mark. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using the interlocking BU logo, alleging that such use constitutes infringement in violation of the agreement and the Plaintiff’s trademark rights.
PATENT
ADANI’S SOLAR EXPORTS HIT BY US PATENT CLASH
Adani Group’s USD 1.6 billion solar exports to the United States face uncertainty after American manufacturer First Solar sued its subsidiary, Mundra Solar PV Ltd (MSPVL), alleging infringement of two patents related to Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact (TOP Con) technology. MSPVL has denied the allegations and filed a pre-emptive lawsuit in a Delaware court seeking a declaration of non-infringement, asserting that its manufacturing process avoids the key elements of First Solar’s patent claims. However, legal experts note that under the U.S. patent law’s “doctrine of equivalents,” which allows a patent holder to establish infringement if the accused process performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result, then First Solar’s case could still succeed. The outcome is expected to have significant implications for Adani’s U.S. market access and the global solar industry’s competitive landscape.
1.Mundra Solar PV Ltd. v. First Solar, Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00462 (D. Del.)
PATENT
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TARGETS HARVARD’S PATENT PORTFOLIO
The Trump administration has launched an investigation into Harvard University’s federally funded patents, warning the school that it could lose control of, or be forced to license its intellectual property. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick cited potential violations of the Bayh-Dole Act and initiated a rare “march-in” proceeding, which allows the government to seize or re-license patents that fail to adequately serve the public interest. Lutnick has given Harvard until early September to disclose all patents stemming from federally funded research, along with details on their use and U.S. manufacturing compliance. Harvard, which holds more than 5,800 patents and over 900 active licenses, sued the administration in April after billions in research funding were frozen amid disputes over civil rights and antisemitism.
COPYRIGHT
YOMIURI SUES PERPLEXITY OVER COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Japan’s largest daily, Yomiuri Shimbun (Plaintiff), has filed a landmark copyright lawsuit against US AI startup Perplexity in the Tokyo District Court, alleging it scraped and reproduced 119,467 articles between February and June without authorization, violating thereby Japan’s reproduction and public transmission rights in the works. The Plaintiff seeks nearly USD 15 million in damages and a court order to block further use. While Japanese law permits AI training on copyrighted works, it bans wholesale reproduction that harms rights holders. Perplexity expressed regret, calling the matter a “misunderstanding,” and said it is reviewing the claims. The case follows similar suits against the company by major publishers in the US, India, and France, reflecting a global pushback by media groups over AI’s use of news content.
COPYRIGHT
ANTHROPIC APPEALS CLASS ACTION OVER ALLEGED PIRATED BOOK USE
The class action against AI firm Anthropic is moving forward, with the company appealing to the US Ninth Circuit to overturn a ruling allowing three authors to represent all writers whose books were allegedly pirated to train its language models. US District Judge William Alsup’s 17th July 2025 order set a December 1 trial date and a September 1 deadline for plaintiffs to list potentially hundreds of thousands of works, alleging Anthropic copied some seven million books from pirate sites such as Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror. Alsup also ruled that both authors and publishers could share in any damages. More law firms have now joined to represent publishers, with the Association of American Publishers coordinating efforts. Observers warn Anthropic could face billions in damages and possible bankruptcy if it loses, even as it seeks to raise another USD 170 billion in funding.
1.Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:24-cv-05417.
