TRADEMARK
DELHI HC RESTRAINS USE OF ‘VIVANTA’
The Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) (Plaintiff), filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Vivanta Stays & Others (Defendants) for using the name “Vivanta Stays” and “Vivanta Realty”. IHCL, who owns the hotel brand Vivanta argued that its Vivanta mark is already a well-known mark recognized by the Delhi HC in 2022 and that use of “Vivanta Stays” or a deceptively similar mark misleads consumers and infringes its rights. The Defendants claimed to be offering vacation villa services and realty services under the name “Vivanta Stays” and “Vivanta Realty”.
The Delhi HC granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and restrained the use of “Vivanta Stays” or any deceptively similar mark by the Defendant in their business. The Court held that the Defendant’s use would likely confuse unwary consumers and infringe Plaintiff’s well-known trademark.
1.The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Vivanta Stays, CS(COMM) 1109/2025
TRADEMARK
CAMEO SUES OPENAI OVER TM INFRINGEMENT
Cameo (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the U.S. federal court of California against OpenAI (Defendants). The Plaintiff, who offers personalized video messages through Cameo, alleges that the Defendant’s new video app, “Sora,” uses a feature called “Cameo” to create and share AI-generated videos. Plaintiff claims that this is likely to confuse consumers and dilute its trademark. The Plaintiff attempted to contact the Defendant to resolve the issue out of court, but the Defendant refused to stop using the name “Cameo”, stating that it disagrees with the claims and argues that no one can have exclusive rights to the word “Cameo.” The court has admitted the case and has scheduled a hearing.
1.Baron App, Inc. d/b/a Cameo v. Openai, Inc. 3:25-cv-09268
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
SKECHERS GRANTED RELIEF IN TM INFRINGEMENT SUIT
Skechers South Asia Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit before the Bombay HC against Manmeet Singh Trading (Defendant) for infringement of their trademarks and artistic works. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants had directly copied its SKECHERS marks, including word marks and “S” logos as well as marks HYPER ARC and ARCH STEP, and were clandestinely operating in Punjab. The Plaintiff, through their lawyers, supported by the local police, executed simultaneous raids across more than 16 locations in Punjab and seized over 2000+ counterfeit products bearing their marks. The HC found a strong prima facie case of infringement and held that the Defendants’ adoption of the Plaintiff’s marks was dishonest, and has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant’s from using Skechers’ trademarks and artistic works.
1. Skechers South Asia (P) Ltd. v. Manmeet Singh Trading, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4047, decided by 10-10-2025
PATENT
PHARMACYCLICS WINS APPEAL AGAINST IPO PATENT REFUSAL
Pharmacyclics (Appellant) filed an appeal before the Calcutta HC against the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs (IPO) for refusing its patent application. The Appellant had filed a patent application for a formula consisting of combination of compound ibrutinib with an anti-CD20 antibody, specifically rituximab and ofatumumab. They titled this invention “The Use of Inhibitors of Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase (BTK)”. However, the IPO refused the application on grounds that the divisional claims covering stated combinations were not present in the parent claims. It also objected to amendments in the parent application. Therefore, The Applicant appealed the refusal order. The HC observed that the IPO’s first examination report had accepted the application as a valid divisional, and the issue of maintainability was raised only later, and once divisional status was recognized, the IPO was bound to conduct a substantive examination on the merits. The HC, setting aside the refusal and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
1.Pharmacyclics LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs (IPDPTA 4 of 2024)
PATENT
SC RELAXES PRE-LITIGATION MEDIATION RULE IN IP INFRINGEMENT CASE
Novenco Building and Industry A/S (Appellant) filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) seeking to bypass mediation given in section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and to register a commercial suit. The Appellant holds a patent and design for industrial fans under the brand name “ZerAx.” It had entered into a dealership agreement with the Respondent in 2017. Subsequently, in 2022, the Appellant discovered that the Respondent had established “Aeronaut Fans Industry Pvt. Ltd.” to manufacture identical fans under a deceptively similar name. This was confirmed through an expert inspection conducted in December 2023. The Appellant then issued cease-and-desist notices, but received no response. Consequently, it filed a commercial suit in June 2024 before the Himachal Pradesh HC seeking an immediate injunction. However, the HC rejected the plaint, citing a six-month delay and the Appellant’s obligation to undergo pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The Appellant then filed an appeal before the SC.
The SC held in an important judgement that the obligation of pre-institution mediation under section 12A cannot be mechanically applied in cases involving continuing infringement of intellectual property rights. The Court observed that the scope of “urgency” must be assessed in light of the ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing deception. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the commercial suit was restored before the High Court.
1.Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1027
COPYRIGHT
ANI APPEAL DISMISSED IN COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASE
ANI Media Pvt Ltd. (Plaintiff) had filed a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Dynamite News Pvt Ltd & Others (Defendant) for reproducing nine of its videos without permission. A single-judge bench ordered the Defendant to remove the videos, and the Defendant agreed to remove the videos, and the Defendants complied, assuring the court that they would not use the Plaintiff’s content again. Subsequently however, the Plaintiff discovered eight more older videos on the Defendant’s channel and approached YouTube directly to block the channel. The Defendant then approached the single-judge bench challenging the blocking action. The bench allowed the unblocking of the channel, subject to the removal of the infringed videos. Consequently, ANI appealed against the order permitting unblocking.
The Delhi HC’s division bench found the Plaintiff’s appeal to be unjustified and criticized the Plaintiff for acting unilaterally while litigation was ongoing. The HC declined to confine its adverse remarks to this case alone, noting that any future infringements would require separate adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
1.ANI Media Private Limited Vs Dynamite News Network P ltd & Ors CS(Comm) 251/2025
MISCELLENEOUS
IFF CONCERN OVER DRAFT IT RULES 2025
India’s Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has raised concerns over the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025 (Draft Rules) released by the MeitY to address the growing risks of synthetically generated information, including deepfakes and AI-manipulated content. IFF described the Draft Rules as “well-intentioned but dangerously expansive”. While the Draft Rules aim to curb harms such as non-consensual intimate imagery and election manipulation, they also risk creating a framework of compelled speech, intrusive monitoring, and generalized surveillance. IFF warned that provisions like Rule 4(1A), which require significant social media intermediaries (SSMIs) to obtain user declarations on synthetically generated content, verify such declarations through reasonable technical measures, and ensure clear labelling of such material, could enable compelled speech, intrusive monitoring, and mass surveillance, undermining privacy, encryption, and free expression. It also criticized MeitY for proposing broad AI measures without a clear national strategy and urged extending the unreasonable deadline, citing the draft’s complexity and potential risks to fundamental rights.
