TRADEMARK
INTERIM RELIEF IN BARBIE TM DISPUTE
Mattel Inc. (Plaintiff) an American toy company and owner of the globally recognized “BARBIE” has filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Padum Borah & others (Defendants), alleging that Borah has been using their brand name “BARBIE” and its variations including “Barbie Enterprises”,” Barbie Kitchen”, “Barbie Catering” and “Barbie one Stop Solution for HORECA Foods”, in their hospitality and catering business. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant’s use is deceptively similar to its well-known Barbie mark, registered in India since 1985, which could cause wrongful association with the brand and confusion among its consumers. Despite Plaintiff’s Cease-and-Desist notice, the Defendant continued to infringe upon the Plaintiff’s marks. The HC passed an interim order directing Defendant to immediately stop using the “Barbie” trademark and take down all the social media accounts and posts referring the trademark and suspend all the domain names using the infringed mark. Further, it held that the use of Barbie mark was visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to Plaintiff’s well-known trademark. It further observed that the Defendant adopted the mark with an intention to free ride upon the Plaintiff’s goodwill, create a wrongful association in the minds of the consumers and thus divert public attention towards his own business. Holding that the Plaintiff had established a clear case of infringement, the Court successfully granted the injunction.
1.Mattel Inc. v. Padum Borah and Ors., CS (COMM) 948/2025
TRADEMARK
CROCS PREVAIL IN A TM DISPUTE AGAINST CROOSE
Crocs Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a petition before the Delhi HC against the usage of the mark “Croose”. The Plaintiff argued that the mark “Croose”, registered for identical goods under class 25 (footwear), was deceptively similar to its globally recognized brand “Crocs”. The company cited its long-standing registration of the mark Crocs with the Indian Trademark registry since 2005-2006 and alleged dishonest adoption of the mark Croose.
The HC ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, holding that the mark “Croose” was visually and phonetically similar to Crocs and likely to cause confusion among the consumers. The HC observed that the defendant had adopted the mark in bad faith with and intention to ride upon Crocs’ established goodwill and reputation. Accordingly, the HC ordered the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the trademark registration for “Croose” with immediate effect.
1.Crocs Inc. v. Registrar, Trademarks, C.O. (COMM. I.P.D- T.M.) No. 82 of 2023
TRADEMARK
PICCADILY WINS INTERIM RELIEF AGAINST RADICO’S VODKA BRAND
Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement suit before the District Court of Karnal against Radico Khaitan Limited (Defendant) for using the mark “Kashmyr” for vodka. Plaintiff claimed that “Kashmyr” is deceptively similar to its registered trademark “Cashmir” and “Cashmere”, which were used for its first luxury vodka launched in May 2025 by Piccadily.
The Court found that Defendant’s mark is sufficient to cause consumer confusion and amounts to trademark infringement, stating that both marks i.e., “Cashmir” and “Cashmere” are similar enough to mislead customers. Further, the Court acted under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, it restrained the Defendant and its affiliates from engaging in any commercial activity with the disputed brand name. The matter is still pending for adjudication, where the Plaintiff is claiming for permanent injunction and damages.
1. Piccadily Agro Industries Limited v. Radico Khaitan Limited, CS/08/2025
PATENT
NOKIA’S PATENT LICENSING CONFIDENTIALITY CASE
Nokia (Plaintiff) filed a suit before the Delhi HC against Asus, Acer, and Hisense (Defendants), which dealt with the constitution of a Confidentiality Club (CC) under the High Court of Delhi Rules, governing patent suits. Plaintiff requested to restrict access to certain confidential licensing information by implementing a two-year limited licensing restriction on Defendants’ in-house representatives and requested permission to redact portions of documents. The Defendants, while opposing these measures, stated that they were arbitrary, inconsistent with foreign proceedings, and could also hinder negotiations.
The HC directed an in-house representative to join the CC, stating that Nokia had already consented, but rejected the two-year restriction as unnecessary. Further, representatives were required to disclose access to third-party license agreements to protect the licensees’ interests. The Court also held that Nokia could redact confidential portions of documents, provided FRAND-relevant terms were visible. Plaintiff was also directed to disclose all comparable licenses.
1.Nokia Technologies OY v. Asustek Computers INC & Anr 2025 DHC 8511
COPYRIGHT
INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED TO ASHA BHOSLE
Asha Bhosle (Plaintiff) had filed a copyright infringement suit before the Bombay HC against Mayak Inc., Google LLC, Flipkart, Amazon, YouTube, including others as (Defendants) for unauthorizedly cloning her voice or using her image, likeness and other characteristics for profit. The Defendants have been ordered to remove all the infringing material identified by the Plaintiff, including the cloned voice recordings, merchandise, and digital content within one week and to ensure that similar unauthorized listings using the Plaintiffs images or likeness are taken down. The Defendants are also directed to provide the Plaintiff with basic subscriber or seller information of infringing parties- including names, contact details, IP logs, etc. to enable her to pursue further legal remedies.
The Plaintiff argued that such misuse undermines her reputation and goodwill built over a career spanning 82 years. The Bombay HC has granted ad-interim protection of personality and moral rights to the Plaintiff.
1.Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc., CS IP (L) No. 30262/2025
COPYRIGHT
BIG BOSS 19 IN A 2-CRORE COPYRIGHT TROUBLE
Phonographic Performance Limited (Plaintiff) India has issued a notice to the producers of the show, Endemol Shine India aka Bigg Boss (Defendant), for the unauthorized use of songs, “Chikni Chameli” and “Dhat Teri Ki”. The Plaintiff stated that both songs are licensed to Sony Music Entertainment India. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to secure the necessary licenses under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff is requesting 2 Crore in damages and fees. Further, Plaintiff has also asked for a cease-and-desist order to halt any further use of the songs. The Defendant is yet to respond.
COPYRIGHT
SONY DIRECTED TO DISCLOSE EARNINGS FROM ILAIYARAJA’S SONGS
Ilayaraja (Plaintiff) has moved to the Madras HC against Sony Music, Echo Recording Company, and Oriental Records and ors (Defendants), claiming that they have been exploiting over 300 of his compositions across various digital platforms. Ilayaraja claims that under the Copyright Act, 1957, he is the first owner of his musical works as he has always operated on a principal-to-principal basis with producers and collaborators. Further, he claimed that none of the parties had provided any kind of documentation to show that he had parted with ownership or rights in his original musical works. Defendants argued that, before the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, Producers became owners after paying composers, stating that the rights to 118 movies were purchased by Echo Recording, which was later transferred to Oriental Records and then finally to Sony, contending that Ilayaraja cannot claim ownership over those works. The Madras HC has ordered Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt Ltd. to disclose detailed accounts of revenue from the commercial exploitation of eminent composer Ilayaraja’s songs until October 22.
1.Dr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Sony Music Entertainment India Private Limited and Others., C.S. (Comm Div)249/2025
POSH
DEFEMATORY REMARK CANNOT BE TREATED AS CASUAL
The Vice-Principal of a school in Delhi (Petitioner) had filed a complaint against the Principal of the school along with 2 other school members (Defendants) in the Delhi HC. The Petitioner contended that the Defendants had called her “r***i”, which was not a casual abuse but a direct attack on her character and dignity as a woman. The Defendants maintained that the alleged abuse lacked any sexual connotation nor did it threaten to deny her a promotion. The HC observed that the allegation that the Defendants called the Plaintiff “r***i” could not be dismissed as casual abuse. The Court partly allowed the petition.
1.Shashi Bala v. State Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., CRL.M.C.—1752/2016
