TRADEMARK
DELHI HC SHUTS DOWN FAKE ZEPTO JOB PORTALS
Zepto Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi HC against the owner of the domain name Zeptonowindia & Ors. (Defendant) for misusing its registered trademark and goodwill to mislead the public into paying money for purported job opportunities with the Plaintiff. The Defendants were also operating websites with domain names ‘zeptojob.com’ and ‘zeptojobs.in’ to invite applications for delivery partners. Several social media pages and groups also associated themselves with Zepto. The Court held that the Defendants were misusing the registered trademark of Zepto to mislead the public, and therefore, an ex parte ad-interim injunction was necessary. The court ordered the removal of fake websites, email addresses, and social media accounts misusing Zepto’s brand name. It also directed that the bank accounts associated with the fraudulent schemes be frozen, and further ordered MeitY to issue orders to service providers to block, delete, and suspend the infringing domain names.
1. Zepto Pvt Lts. vs Owner of Domain Name Zeptonowindia.com CS (COMM) No. 895 of 2025
TRADEMARK
VALVOLIN – PERMANENT INJUNCTION GRANTED
VGP IPCO LLC (Plaintiff), a US-based automotive lubricant manufacturer, filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Mr. Suresh Kumar, trading as Om Shiv Lubricants & Ors (Defendant), for selling ‘Vivoline’ engine oils using a similar mark, trade dress, artwork, and packaging layout to their trademark ‘Valvoline’. The Plaintiff further contended that the volume of sales in India is huge, and therefore, the Defendants must have been aware of their mark
The HC observed that “The Defendants have replicated the trade dress and overall representations of Plaintiff’s goods in respect of identical goods, and the Defendant’s impugned marks are deceptively, visually, and phonetically similar to those of the Plaintiffs’, which is bound to contribute to confusion in the marketplace.” The Court further held that the adoption of the impugned marks was not honest and permanently restrained the Defendants from using the mark.
1. SVGP IPCO LLV & Anr vs Mr. Suresh Kumar Trading as Om Shiv Lubricants, CS(COMM) 821/2024
PATENT
UK HC REJECTS THALER’S LATEST PATENT APPEAL IN DABUS DISPUTE
The London HC has dismissed US computer scientist Dr Stephen Thaler’s latest attempt to secure UK patents for inventions attributed to his AI system, DABUS. In a ruling on 1 September 2025, Deputy HC Judge Michael Tappin KC upheld the UKIPO’s decision that Thaler’s application was deemed withdrawn after he failed to file a valid inventorship statement. Thaler had tried to change course by naming himself as the inventor, despite previously maintaining that DABUS alone conceived the inventions. The judge found this shift inconsistent and rejected his arguments, including claims under human rights law. The decision closes another chapter in the high-profile litigation, reaffirming that under UK law, only a human can be recognised as an inventor.
1.Stephen Thaler (appellant) v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (respondent) ([2025] EWHC 2202 (Ch))
PATENT
FIRST SOLAR WARNS WAAREE ENERGIES OVER PATENT INFRINGEMENT
US solar giant, First Solar, has sent a warning to India’s Waaree Energies, claiming that its TOPCon solar cells infringe on two of its patents and demanded a halt to the production or licensing deal, with legal action threatened if ignored. The move could hit Waaree’s Rs. 30,000 crore US export business, which forms nearly 60% of its 25 GW pending orders. First Solar has also pursued similar actions globally, including against the Adani Group and JinkoSolar, highlighting growing patent disputes as advanced solar technologies like TOPCon, HJT, and perovskite gain market traction.
COPYRIGHT
INDIA AND AUSTRALIA FORGE FILM COLLABORATION INITIATIVES
The National Film Development Corporation (NFDC) has signed two Letters of Intent with Screen Producers Australia (SPA) and the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia (NFSA) to boost co-productions, cultural exchange, and film heritage preservation. The partnership with SPA will launch India Connect, bringing Indian producers to Australia’s SCREEN FOREVER 2026 for networking and project-matching, while the NFSA collaboration will focus on archival projects and digitization. The initiatives, rolling out in late 2025, aim to strengthen creative ties, foster global collaborations, and safeguard the cinematic legacies of both nations.
COPYRIGHT
MEXICO’S SC RULES AI-CREATED WORKS CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED
Mexico’s SC has ruled that works generated exclusively by artificial intelligence cannot be registered under the country’s copyright regime, affirming that authorship belongs solely to humans. The court emphasized that automated systems lack the creativity, originality, and individuality required for moral rights and that limiting authorship to humans is “objective, reasonable and compatible with international treaties.” The decision arose from a 2024 case in which INDAUTOR (Mexico’s National Institute of Copyright) denied copyright registration for an AI-generated avatar titled “Virtual Avatar: Gerald García Báez” on the basis that it lacked human intervention. However, the ruling allows for copyright protection in works created collaboratively with AI, provided there is substantial human contribution, such as directing, selecting, editing, or transforming AI-generated output to impart originality and personal expression. Intellectual property experts note that registering such works requires documenting the human creative process to meet the requirements of the Federal Copyright Law, ensuring that Mexico balances technological innovation with the traditional principles of authorship.
DATA PRIVACY
GOOGLE FACES USD 425M PRIVACY CLAIM
A class action suit was filed before the San Francisco court against Google in July 2020 for allegedly violating users’ privacy by continuing to collect data even when the users switched off a key tracking feature. The Plaintiff alleged that Google had gathered and stored users’ information for over eight years, and continued harvesting user data through its ties with apps such as Uber, Venmo, and Instagram. Google contended that the data collected was nonpersonal, pseudonymous, and stored in a secure, encrypted location not linked to individual accounts. The US court found Google liable for privacy violations affecting approximately 98 million users and 174 million devices, and ordered it to pay USD 425 million in damages.
