TRADEMARK
VOLVO’S 30 YEAR TRADEMARK BATTLE COMES TO AN END
AB Volvo (Petitioner) filed a trademark infringement suit in 1995 before the Ahmedabad DC against Volvo Terry Industries Limited and otrs (Defendant). The Plaintiff alleged that they had registered the mark “Volvo” since 1970 and claimed that the Defendant had deliberately adopted the mark to free-ride on its goodwill and global brand reputation. Additionally, they contended that their trademark registration extends to different classes of products beyond vehicles, covering a wide range of lifestyle products.
The court delivered its judgment after 30 years, holding that the Defendants must refrain from using the mark in both their towel business and financial services arm. Further, the court affirmed that trademark dilution and misappropriation can extend across product categories if a brand enjoys well-known status. Consequently, the court ordered the Defendant to pay Rs. 1 lakh as nominal damages.
TRADEMARK
INTERIM STAY IN AMAZON TM DISPUTE UPHELD
Lifestyle Equities (Appellant) filed a plea in the Supreme Court of India against Amazon (Respondent) concerning an ongoing Rs. 340 crore trademark infringement case. The Appellant had filed a complaint in 2020, alleging that the Respondent’s private label fashion line, i.e., Cloudtail India, carried logos deceptively similar to BHPC’s registered trademark. While Cloudtail admitted liability, the Respondent did not appear before the Delhi High Court and was proceeded against ex parte. Initially, a single-judge bench found the Respondent liable and ordered payment of Rs. 340 crores in damages. However, in July, a division bench of the Delhi High Court stayed the ruling, citing critical gaps in due process. Consequently, the appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.
The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the appeal and upheld the Delhi High Court’s interim stay. The apex court effectively paused enforcement of the damage’s directive against Amazon, citing due process lapses and the imposition of excessive damages beyond the original claim.
TRADEMARK
INTERIM STAY ON BRAND USE TO PREVENT PUBLIC CONFUSION
M/S Azure Hospitality Private Limited (Appellant) filed this appeal before the Delhi High Court against Amit Bhasin (Respondent) for using the franchise brand names after the termination of the franchise agreement. The parties had entered into a franchise agreement to operate outlets; however, a dispute arose over franchise fee payments, leading to the filing of a petition in court. The Commercial Court initially granted an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from using the trademarks. However, the Court later vacated the injunction and dismissed the Section 9 petitions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Appellant then filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellant argued that the Respondent’s continued use of the brand names “Mamagato” and “Dhaba” could cause public confusion, as customers might associate the Respondent’s outlets with the Appellant.
The Court held that the franchise agreements were terminated due to non-payment of the Project Management Fee, and the Respondent could not be allowed to use the brand names indefinitely. Prima facie, the continued use of the brands post-termination could cause public confusion. Further, the Court allowed interim use of the brand names until 31.12.2025 on mutually agreed terms and appointed Justice Manmohan Singh (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator. The Appellant will supply raw materials to the Respondent during this period.
1. M/S Azure Hospitality Private Limited vs Amit Bhasin, Proprietor of Retail India Solutions 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1115
TRADEMARK
COLGATE MOVES DELHI HC FOR TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT
Colgate Palmolive (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi HC against the Chinese products for copying Colgate’s trademark blue and red packaging. The Plaintiff alleged that Chinese toothbrushes and toothpastes were being transported from China to India for sale under the brand name “Doctor Good” using a trade dress of blue and red packaging and placed images of the product on record. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining of the Chinese goods from carrying on such infringement.
The Delhi HC observed the product category, trade channel, and consumer base of Colgate’s products and those of “Doctor Good” are identical and opined that any adoption of an identical or deceptively similar trade dress is likely to cause dilution of the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. However, the Court refrained from passing an injunction order until the presence of the products with the Customs authorities is ascertained. The Court directed the Customs authorities to open two boxes of products in the presence of two Colgate representatives and to file a report of the same before the Court. The next date of hearing has been fixed for October 29, 2025.
1. Colgate Palmolive Co vs John Doe & Ors, CS (COMM) 988/2025
PATENT
DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR AYUSH PATENT APPLICATIONS
The Government of India, through the Ministry of AYUSH, has issued draft guidelines for processing patent applications in the Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, and Homeopathy (AYUSH) domain. These guidelines provide principles and illustrative examples to assess the patentability of inventions related to AYUSH and complement the 2012 framework for traditional knowledge and biological materials, aiming to balance the protection of traditional knowledge with the promotion of innovation.
The draft guidelines outline the scope of inventions, including products, devices/equipment, and food recipes or nutraceuticals used in AYUSH systems. They also clarify compliance requirements under the Biodiversity Act, 2002, stating that applicants must obtain approval if their inventions are based on research involving biological resources accessed from India. The guiding principles set out in the draft includes Patentability of Extracts and Isolates, Combination Formulations, known active ingredients in combinations, Optimization of known ingredients is not inventive, isolating a single component from a known mixture is not inventive, and AYUSH equipment & devices may be patentable.
COPYRIGHT
WARNER BROS SUES MIDJOURNEY FOR BRAZEN IP THEFT
Warner Bros, Discovery (Plaintiff) is filing a copyright infringement suit before the California federal court against Midjourney (Defendant) for “brazenly” theft of intellectual property. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, an AI photo generation company, has purposefully infringed on their copyrighted works including Superman, Batman, the Flash, Wonder Woman, and others. Further, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant created a consumer confusion by misleading its subscribers to believe that their images and videos generated by its service are authorized by Warner Bros. Discovery. The Plaintiff are seeking $150,000 per infringed work.
1.Warner Bros Entertainment Inc et al vs Midjourney Inc, U.S. District Court, Central District, California, No. 25-08376
POSH
DELHI HC LAUNCHES SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT PORTAL
Hon’ble Justice N. Kotiswar of the Delhi HC has led the initiative to launch a dedicated online portal for filing complaints of workplace sexual harassment. The portal enables women to report incidents from the comfort and privacy of their own homes, helping them overcome the fear and stigma associated with such reports. Hon’ble Justice Kotiswar mentioned that the portal represents a transformative leap, enhancing confidentiality, efficiency, and accessibility for survivors. He further added that Delhi has taken the lead in demonstrating a sincere commitment and structural preparedness. Several justices, including Justice Pratibha M. Singh, shared their views on the importance of initiating a portal like this, noting that its launch is a defining moment for the judiciary, signaling a commitment to systemic reform, gender equity, and ongoing education.
