TRADEMARK
FSSAI PROHIBITS USE OF “ORS” AS BRAND NAME OR LABEL
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (“FSSAI”) directed states to ensure that all food & beverage companies remove the term “ORS” from their brand names or labels, that are used either as a prefix, suffix or trademark, unless the product adheres to WHO’s (World Health Organization’s) approved ORS formula. FSSAI clarified that using “ORS” in any form, for any fruit-flavored, non-carbonated, or ready-to-drink beverages, is against the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It stated that use of the term ORS can mislead consumers and violate provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
TRADEMARK
CADBURY AND MARS SETTLE TM DISPUTE AFTER 25 YEARS
Mars Incorporated (Plaintiff) reached a mutual agreement with Cadbury (India) Ltd. (Defendants) to resolve a trademark issue before the Delhi HC over the use of the trademark “Celebrations” for their chocolate assortments in India. Both companies alleged that the other’s use of the mark infringed their respective rights, claiming it would cause confusion among consumers. This dispute had been going on for over 25 years.
The Plaintiffs argued that their brand identity and goodwill were being harmed by the other’s use of the same name “Celebrations,” while the Defendants maintained that their use was legitimate and did not create any confusion. In July 2025, both companies reached a mutual settlement, withdrawing all ongoing proceedings and now the mark “Celebrations” can now be used by both companies.
1.Mars Incorporated vs Cadbury (India) Ltd & Ors CS (COMM) 409/2018.
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC RESTRAINS WOW BURGER FOR TM INFRINGEMENT
Wow Momo Foods Pvt Ltd. (Plaintiff), filed a trademark infringement suit before Delhi HC against Wow Burger & Anr. (Defendants) alleging that the “Wow Burger” infringed upon its registered trademarks. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant infringed upon their “WOW + Food” format. The Delhi HC dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for an interim injunction, ruling that the Plaintiff did not demonstrate a prima facie case.
However, the Commercial Division Bench of the Delhi HC overturned the previous order and determined that the competing mark bore a strong resemblance to the Plaintiff’s mark, potentially confusing consumers and leading them to believe there was a link between the two brands. The Court further stated that the Plaintiff has established a notable family of marks employing a unique naming structure and thus the Court issued a temporary injunction on the Defendant’s stating that its actions violated the Plaintiff’s registered trademark.
1. Sun Pharmaceuticals Medicare Ltd. vs Alenvision Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CS (COMM) 908/2025
TRADEMARK
FIRM FINED 50 LAKHS FOR SUPRESSION OF FACTS IN TM DISPUTE
Plaintiff Shobhan Salim Thakur (Plaintiff), a shoe manufacturer, filed a trademark infringement suit before the Bombay HC against one Chaitanya Arora and his firm (Defendants). The Plaintiff, seeking an interim order restraining the Defendants from selling footwear under the trademark ‘Doctor Health Super Soft, Doctor Super Soft, Doctor Extra Soft.’ However, the Plaintiff failed to disclose to the Court that the use of his trademark was limited only to Maharashtra and had in fact fraudulently obtained an ex-parte order from the court, for enforcement all over India. The Defendants applied for the cancellation of the court order alleging that Plaintiff’s fraud on the Court. Consequently, the Bombay HC cancelled the interim order and held that the Plaintiffs’ conduct was dishonest and ordered the Plaintiffs to pay 25 lakhs each to the Defendants.
1. Shoban Salim Thakur v. Chaitanya Arora & Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 18278 OF 2025.
PATENT
SC MOVES PATENT BATTLE TO BOMBAY HC
Eureka Forbes Ltd. (Plaintiff) had filed a patent infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd (Defendant) alleging that the Defendants unlawfully incorporated its patent features, particularly customizable taste and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) adjustment technologies in their technology.
The Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs’ approach to the Delhi High Court was unreasonable since both companies are based in Mumbai and a suit was already pending in the Bombay High Court, stating that parallel proceedings could cause conflicting judgments. The Plaintiff countered that since the alleged infringement occurred in Delhi, the Delhi HC had proper jurisdiction. The Defendants then filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered both suits to be heard together, transferring the Plaintiff’s case from Delhi HC to Bombay HC for consistency.
1.Atomberg Technologies Pvt Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd & Anr Transfer Petition (C) No(S). 2174 Of 2025.
COPYRIGHT
AI MUSIC THREATENS IP ROYALTIES
Fitch Ratings has warned that growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in music creation could adversely impact artist’s royalty earnings and the value of music IP investments. The agency observed that AI tools now allow rapid production and distribution of songs, increasing competition on streaming platforms and potentially reducing demand for original artist-created music.
Although AI-generated music forms a small part of streams, platforms have started implementing stricter steps like removing AI-generated songs from playlists, blocking mass uploads and preventing fake accounts. Fitch further warned that if streaming platforms start owning AI-generated music, royalty payments to artists could significantly reduce and decline.
COPYRIGHT
SALESFORCE SUED OVER UNAUTHORIZED AI TRAINING
Molly Tanzer and Jennifer Gilmore (Plaintiffs), well known authors, have filed a class action lawsuit before the District Court of California against Salesforce (Defendant), accusing the company of using copyrighted books without consent, to train its xGen AI language model. The Plaintiffs claim Salesforce violated their copyrights by incorporating their works into its AI training data without authorization or consent. The Defendant has not publicly responded to the lawsuit yet.
1.Tanzer v. Salesforce, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-08862.
