TRADEMARK
INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED IN “ALKEM” TM DISPUTE
Alkem Laboratories (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Alchem International (Defendant) for infringing the mark “Alkem”. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant’s use of “Alchem” for similar products, particularly after expanding its retail business, was likely to confuse consumers and damage the Plaintiff’s business. The Defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the Plaintiff’s long inaction amounted to acquiescence. The Plaintiff responded that its earlier inaction was because the Defendant initially dealt only in bulk drugs and did not pose competitive threat. The Delhi HC rejected the Defendant’s acquiescence and limitation defenses, and held that mere silence of delay does not automatically amount to giving up rights. Further, held that Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case of infringement and passing off and granted an injunction restraining the Defendant from using the disputed trademark “ALKEM” or any deceptively similar mark in relation to the pharmaceutical or medicinal products.
1.Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Alcem International Pvt. Ltd., CS (COMM) 1050/2018
TRADEMARK
WIPRO RECOGNIZED AS A WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK
WIPRO Enterprises (Plaintiff) filed a suit before the Delhi HC against Shivam Udyog (Respondent) challenging the trademark application for the mark “SHIVAM UDYOG WIPRO WIRE MESH”. Plaintiff contended that “WIPRO” is already a well-known mark in India and that the proposed mark would be deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion. It submitted evidence of sustained and uninterrupted use of the mark since 1977 and highlighted that its product enjoys immense reputation and registration across multiple product classes and sectors, both in India and abroad. The Defendant sought to register the new mark, claiming distinctiveness or lack of confusion.
The Delhi HC designated WIPRO as a well-known trademark, noting its long history, reputation and goodwill around the world. Further, it noted WIPRO’s prior and continued use of the mark, with the earliest device mark being registered in 1991, eighteen years after the mark was first used in 1977. Additionally, the court acknowledged its brand portfolio consisting of over 1,000 trademarks in several countries along with investment in brand development over the decades.
1.WIPRO Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Shivam Udhyog, C.S. (COMM) No. 945 of 2025
TRADEMARK
SUN PHARMA GETS INTERIM RELIEF IN NAXDOM
Sun Pharmaceutical Medicare (Plaintiff) filed a suit before the Delhi High Court against Alenvision Pharma (Defendants) to restrain the defendants from marketing a migraine drug under the mark “NEXADOM”. The Plaintiff claimed long prior use and registration of their mark “NAXDOM” since 2007, along with strong market reputation, and argued that the Defendant’s mark was deceptively similar to their mark, especially since both drugs contained similar ingredients and targeted the same medical condition. The Defendant’s mark had already been refused registration by the Trade Marks Registry for being deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s mark. A notice was served to the Defendants, who failed to appear before the court. The Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing under the name of NEXADOM or any other deceptively similar mark.
1. Sun Pharmaceuticals Medicare Ltd. vs Alenvision Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CS (COMM) 908/2025
PATENT
PHILIPS LOSES VIDEO CD PATENT INFRINGEMENT AFTER 21 YEARS
Philips (Plaintiff) lost a 21-year-old patent infringement lawsuit against BCI Optical Disc Ltd (Defendant) before the Delhi HC. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant infringed its patent related to Video CD (VCD) technology by replicating discs using its proprietary system. Further, it claimed infringement over three components i.e., their transmitter, receiver, a transmission medium and the system as a whole, which were integral to the VCD system.
The Delhi HC ruled that the Plaintiff failed to prove the Defendant’s replication process included all the components of the patent system. The suit has been ongoing since 2004, although the patent itself expired in 2010. Further, the court noted that the Plaintiff did not sufficiently map its patent claims to the Defendant’s technology, especially since the replication used matter discs created by third parties. The court emphasized that in a system patent, all elements must be proven to exist in the infringing process.
1.Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. M. Bathla and Anr., CS (COMM) 533/2018
PATENT
STRAVA FILES A PATENT INFRINGEMENT LAW SUIT AGAINST GARMIN
Strava (Plaintiff), has filed a patent infringement lawsuit before the Colorado District Court against Garmin and Ors. (Defendants). The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants infringed two patented features of their device, namely “Segments” and “Heatmaps,” and also violated a written agreement between the parties.
The Plaintiff stated that despite sending written notices of infringement and breach of contract, the Defendants continued to use its patented technology without any authorization or license. The Plaintiff seeks a complete ban on sales of the Defendant’s infringing and award damages for lost revenue and harm to Strava’s reputation.
1.Strava Inc v. Garmin Ltd 1:25-cv-03074 U.S. Federal Court in Colorado
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HC TO PROTECT PERSONALITY RIGHTS OF KUMAR SANU
Kumar Sanu (Plaintiff) filed a case before the Delhi HC against Jammable Limited and Ors. (Defendants), seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using AI-generated voice clones, morphed videos, and impersonating accounts using his identity without consent. The Plaintiff flagged over 34 infringing URLs and several fake profiles. The Delhi HC stated that it will pass an interim injunction order to ensure comprehensive protection of the Plaintiff’s right and directed removal of offending online content.
1.Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee v. Jammable Limited & Ors. CS(COMM) 1097/2025
COPYRIGHT
APPLE ACCUSED OF USING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL TO TRAIN ITS AI
Dr. Susana Martinez-Conde and Dr. Stephen Macknik (Plaintiffs) have filed a lawsuit in the California Federal court against Apple Inc. (Defendant) for copyright infringement. The Plaintiffs well-known neuroscientists and professors, alleged that the Defendant trained its AI models using pirated books and copies of e-books, amounting to copyright infringement. Further, stated that the Defendant had trained its OpenELM model using a pirated database called Book3, a shadow library that contains more than 190,000 works. The Defendant contended that its model relies on “publicly available and open-source data.” In response, the Plaintiffs asserted that, “publicly available” does not equate to “legally usable,” The Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and a court order preventing Apple from further copyright violations.
1.Martinez-Conde et al vs. Apple Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-08695
