TRADEMARK
PAKISTAN COURT UPHOLDS ‘SATTARBUKSH’ CAFÉ AGAINST STARBUCKS TRADEMARK SUIT
In a significant ruling, a Pakistani court has dismissed Starbucks’ long-running trademark claims against the local parody café Sattarbuksh. Founded in 2013, Sattarbuksh combines humour and cultural references, featuring a moustached-man logo and a diverse menu extending beyond coffee to burgers, desserts, and shisha. Starbucks had alleged infringement of its globally recognized name and siren logo, but the café successfully argued that its branding was satire, not piracy, and made adjustments to distinguish itself. The decision ends a 12-year legal battle, cementing Sattarbuksh as a legitimate brand in Pakistan and a symbol of local creativity resisting global monopoly. The case has sparked widespread social media humour, with many hailing it as a “desi dupe done right.”
TRADEMARK
CAMPURE” VS. “KARPURE: HC REJECTS INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
The Bombay HC dismissed Mangalam Organics’ (Plaintiff) application for injunction against the Defendant’s use of the registered marks “KARPURE” and “AIR KARPURE” for camphor-based products. The Plaintiff, who is the owner of the “CAMPURE” mark, alleges trademark infringement and passing off of its trademarks, claiming a deceptive similarity between the rival marks and trade dress.
The HC held that infringement cannot be claimed against a registered proprietor and found that “CAMPURE” and “KARPURE/AIR KARPURE” were not deceptively similar when viewed as a whole. It further observed that the packaging and trade dress of the products were sufficiently distinct, reducing the likelihood of confusion. Since no prima facie case of passing off was established, the Plaintiff’s injunction plea was rejected, affirming the Defendant’s statutory entitlement to its registered marks.
1. Mangalam Organics Ltd vs N Ranga Rao and Sons Pvt Ltd. (IAL-7446-2025, Commercial IP Suit No. 194 of 2025, BOM HC, 03/09/2025)
PATENT
PATENT ON EGG PROTEIN PRODUCTION CHALLENGED
Finnish startup Onego Bio has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin seeking to invalidate US Patent No. 12,096,784 held by rival The Every Company. Onego alleges that Every obtained the patent through fraud, is demanding “unwarranted licensing fees,” and has attempted to interfere with Onego’s investor relations. Both companies produce ovalbumin, an egg white protein, via precision fermentation, but while Every relies on yeast (Komagataella phaffii), Onego uses fungus (Trichoderma reesei). Onego contends that the use of Trichoderma was pioneered by VTT and that Every’s patent improperly claims publicly known technology without enabling disclosure. Onego seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement, also alleging patent misuse and anti-competitive conduct.
1.Onego Bio Inc v Clara Foods (d.b.a. The Every Company), (Case No. 3:25-cv-00761)
PATENT
NINTENDO SECURES CONTROVERSIAL GAMEPLAY PATENTS
Nintendo has recently been granted two new U.S. patents that could have significant implications for the gaming industry. US Patent No. 12,409,387 covers riding and flying systems, while US Patent No. 12,403,397 protects summoning and battling mechanics, areas central to its ongoing litigation against Palworld.
IP attorneys and industry experts have criticized the grants, noting that the patents were approved with “alarmingly little resistance” and have pointed to procedural irregularities at the USPTO. Commentators observed that one of the patents had initially been rejected for overlap with Tencent and Xbox filings but was later allowed after amendments with minimal scrutiny. They warn that such broad protection over core gameplay mechanics could stifle innovation and give Nintendo additional leverage to pressure competitors.
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HC CITES PRIOR DISMISSAL OF SHAMSHERA CLAIM
The Delhi HC refused to give immediate protection to Dharma Productions in a copyright dispute regarding the movie “Shamshera”. The HC noted that the copyright infringement allegations against “Shamshera” had already been rejected in the case of Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar v. Yash Raj Films & Ors (20th December 2023). Bhullar argued that “Shamshera” copied his 2006 script titled “Kabu Na Chhadein Khet”, pointing to themes like father-son conflict and revenge. The Court held these were common cinematic elements (scènes à faire) and hence denied the injunction. While Yash Raj Films received a stay order in the 2023 proceedings, Dharma Productions must wait until 14th October 2025, as the HC issued notice but declined to stay the investigation.
1.Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. State of NCT Delhi (CRL.M.C.-6359/2025, CRL.M.A. 26855/2025)
COPYRIGHT
AISHWARYA RAI & ABHISHEK BACHCHAN MOVE DELHI HC
Bollywood actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan have filed separate petitions before the Delhi HC seeking protection of their personality rights, requesting the HC to restrain online platforms from misusing their names, images, likenesses, or voices, particularly through AI-generated pornographic or deepfake content. In the case of Aishwarya, the HC observed that she is a global icon and has acquired unparalleled goodwill and recognition, and that unauthorized use of her persona by third parties could cause confusion regarding affiliation. Accordingly, the HC granted interim relief, directing the defendants to remove infringing material and block URLs within 72 hours, while also restraining the unauthorized commercial use of her identity. In the case of Abhishek, the HC issued an ex parte interim injunction mandating the takedown of multiple infringing URLs and restraining misuse of advanced technology against his persona.
1.Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwarya world.com & Ors., CS (COMM) 956/2025 Abhishek Bachchan v. The Bollywood Tee Shop & Ors., CS (COMM) 960/2025
COPYRIGHT
ANTHROPIC AI CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENT
Anthropic has agreed to pay USD 1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by authors who alleged that the company used pirated books without permission to train its AI system Claude, as was reported by us in our IP News dated 29th August 2025. Under the proposed settlement (pending court approval), roughly 500,000 works would be eligible for being protected against infringement by Anthropic, with approximately USD 3,000 per book in compensation. Anthropic is also required to destroy downloaded pirated books from shadow libraries. While Anthropic had won summary judgment in June that using legally purchased books for AI training can qualify as “fair use,” the court held that retaining and using pirated copies even beyond training was not protected.
