TRADEMARK
PARLE AGRO CHALLENGES PEPSICO’S USE OF ‘FIZZ’ IN TM DISPUTE
Parle Agro (Plaintiffs) approached the Delhi HC to restrain PepsiCo (Defendant) India from using the word ‘Fizz’ on the packaging of its 7Up beverage, alleging trademark infringement. Parle contends that ‘Fizz’ forms an essential and distinctive part of its registered trademark ‘Appy Fizz,’ launched in 2005, and that PepsiCo’s recent packaging changes, which feature ‘Fizz’ more prominently, are intended to imitate its branding and mislead consumers. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant’s move dilutes its brand and exploits the goodwill built through products like Appy Fizz, Frooti Fizz, Grappo Fizz, and B-Fizz. PepsiCo stated it had not yet been served with the suit and argued that ‘Fizz’ is a generic term widely used for carbonated beverages. As such, Parle cannot claim exclusive rights over the word. The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Delhi HC on 25th August, 2025.
TRADEMARK
TIMELY DISPOSAL OF TM APPLICATIONS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
The Rajasthan HC has affirmed that the right to a speedy and expeditious disposal of trademark applications is a fundamental component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court expressed strong disapproval of an excessive delay spanning over 15 years in the disposal of a trademark application, noting that such prolonged inaction causes significant uncertainty for applicants, undermines public confidence in the trademark system, and adversely affects business operations.
The Court highlighted the procedural safeguards under Rule 50 of the Trademark Rules, 2017, which prescribe clear timelines and limits on adjournments to ensure timely hearings and decisions. It emphasized that the Registrar of Trademarks is duty-bound to adhere strictly to these provisions and must not allow applications to linger indefinitely. Directing the Registrar to decide the petitioner’s application within three months, the Court further called for a comprehensive strategy to address the backlog of pending applications.
1. The Registrar of Trademarks, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18998/2022
TRADEMARK
ACCESS TO PASSIVE WEBSITE INSUFFICIENT FOR TM DISPUTE
The Delhi HC has clarified that mere access to a “passive” website offering allegedly infringing products does not establish territorial jurisdiction. Without evidence of sale or commercial transactions executed through the website within Delhi, the Plaintiff cannot claim jurisdiction over parties or products based outside the territory. The dispute involved Kanpur-based phenyl manufacturers, where the Plaintiff operated under ‘DOCTOR BRAND PHENYLE’ and ‘DOCTOR BRAND GERM TROLL’ since 1973, and the Defendants marketed similar products as ‘DOCTOR HAZEL’S BRAND PHENYL’ and ‘CHEMIST BRAND GERM TROLL’. The Court noted the Plaintiff failed to provide invoices or proof of sales in Delhi and accepted the Defendant’s submission that their website was passive and did not facilitate orders. Regarding the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants’ products were listed on IndiaMart, the Court observed that IndiaMart is not a transactional platform and mere listing does not confer jurisdiction and stated that jurisdiction arises only from use of a registered trademark, not its application. Consequently, the Court held that the suit lacked territorial jurisdiction and returned the plaint.
1.Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd v. Shri Gopal Engineering And Chemical Works Pvt Ltd & Ors (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 998) Case No.: CS(COMM) 85/2018
PATENT
PATENT DISPUTE OVER COVID-19 DRUG IN THE EU
Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Plaintiff) has initiated a patent infringement suit before the Unified Patent Court (UPC), EU, against Pfizer Inc. (Defendant), alleging that Defendant’s COVID-19 antiviral drug ‘Paxlovid’ infringes Plaintiff’s EU patent relating to coronavirus protease inhibitors. The Plaintiff claims that Pfizer’s patent was derived from its own research program in small-molecule drug development, and it covers the active component used in Paxlovid. The UPC is expected to hear the matter within 12 months, and if infringement is established, then further proceedings will be conducted to decide the damages.
PATENT
WEGOVY PATENT DISPUTE SENT TO MEDIATION
Natco Pharma filed a suit before the Delhi HC against Novo Nordisk, claiming that Natco’s version of the blockbuster weight-loss drug ‘WeGovy’ (semaglutide) does not infringe on Novo Nordisk’s process or device patents. Natco further submitted that although it approached Novo Nordisk to communicate regarding its non-infringing product, no response was received. The Delhi HC directed the parties to engage in pre-litigation mediation with a view to exploring mutual settlement. The Court clarified that the substantive patent issues would be taken up if mediation fails.
COPYRIGHT
NO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR FILM TITLES
Sunil Darshan Saberwal (Plaintiff) filed a copyright infringement suit before the Bombay HC against Star India Pvt. Ltd. i.e., Jio Hotstar (Defendant), to restrain the release of a web series titled the same as his 1993 film. The Plaintiff argued that he had an exclusive right over the film title “Lootere” as he had registered it with the Western India Film Producers Association (WIFPA) in 2010 and had a copyright registration for the film.
The Bombay HC held that the title of a film or book does not constitute a “work” within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957. Further, the Court observed that mere registration of a title with a private association does not confer any legal rights to the registrant, and such registration is binding only on the members of that association. As the Defendant was not a member of WIFPA, it was not bound by the said registration. Hence, the Court dismissed the plea and settled the position stating that film titles are not protected under copyright law.
1.Sunil S/o Darshan Saberwal v Star India Pvt. Ltd IA NO. 3347 of 2024
COPYRIGHT
PROTECTION GIVEN TO TIGRESS DESIGN FASHION
Rahul Mishra & Anr (Plaintiffs) instituted a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Nishchaiy Sajdeh & Ors (Defendants) for unauthorized reproduction of their original “Tigress Artistic Work” and floral motifs used in their Sunderbans collection. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were manufacturing and selling garments with identical designs through online platforms at Rs. 20-30k, whereas the Plaintiffs’ original creations were priced at Rs 3–4 lakh, thereby diluting their brand value and undercutting the livelihood of craftsmen engaged in the intricate handwork in the designs. The Delhi HC held that a prima facie case of infringement was made, and passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in garments or materials reproducing the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted work. The matter was listed for further hearing on 19 November 2025.
1.Rahul Mishra & Anr vs Nishchaiy Sajdeh & Ors, CS (COM) 786/2025
MISCELLANEOUS
NEW LAW REGULATES ONLINE GAMING IN INDIA
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, passed on 21st August, 2025, marks a key step in India’s digital governance. It bans online money games involving financial stakes to curb addiction, financial distress, and associated risks like fraud and money laundering. The Bill empowers authorities to block illegal platforms, including offshore operators, and introduces strict penalties for violations. At the same time, it promotes e-sports and safe, skill-based games, recognizing them as legitimate sports and enabling government support through training and incentives, striking a balance between protection and innovation in India’s digital space. A national regulator will oversee the sector, ensuring responsible growth and appropriate game classification.
