TRADEMARK
MEDIATION IN WHISKEY TM DISPUTE
John Distilleries Ltd. (Appellant) challenged the Madras HC’s decision before SC in its trademark dispute with Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) for its mark “Original Choice”. The Respondent had originally filed a rectification petition before IPAB against the Respondent’s mark “Officer’s Choice”; however, the Madras HC later overturned the IPAB’s decision and ordered removal of the Respondent’s trademark from the registry on the grounds of non-distinctiveness and likelihood of confusion. The Respondent claimed that the Appellant’s mark was phonetically and visually similar to its own, causing consumer confusion in the market. The Appellant countered by stating that both the brands had peacefully co-existed in the market and that the Appellant had infact not disclosed material facts during its own trademark registration. When the matter came up before the SC, it referred both the parties to mediation and appointed former SC judge Justice L Nageshwar Rao to mediate the TM Dispute.
1.M/S. John Distilleries Pvt Limited v. M/S. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd., SLP(C) No. 33238-33239/2025
TRADEMARK
RELIEF TO DREAM11 IN TM DISPUTE
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement suit before Delhi HC against American Dream 11 Fantasy Sports Pvt. Ltd. (Defendants). The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were illegally using its trademark name and had copied its logo, colour, layout, and user interface, which created a deceptively similar mark and confusion among the Indian consumers, despite its assertions of operating only in the US and Canada. The Defendants stated that they would remove all the content, would ensure not targeting the Indian market, as well as would geo-block their website, restricting access to India.
The Delhi HC, however, noted that social media platforms cannot not be geo-blocked and therefore ordered the Defendants to take down or block all their social media pages using the infringing or any other deceptively similar mark. The court also recorded Defendant’s undertaking to stop using the infringing mark as a trade name, logo, domain name, or in any other manner in India and referred the dispute to Delhi HC’s Mediation and Conciliation Centre for a possible settlement.
1.Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd v. American Dream 11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited and Anr., CS(COMM) 1220/2025
TRADEMARK
CARNATIC CAFÉ WINS TM DISPUTE
Carnatic Café (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi District Court against Lemonpepper Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (Defendants) alleging that the Defendants were using marks which were deceptively similar to “Carnatic Café”, in respect of identical restaurant services. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants’ use of the mark infringed upon its goodwill built since 2012, and would lead to consumer confusion and false association with the Plaintiff’s business.
The Delhi District Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the Defendants from using the name, logo, domain name or any other deceptively similar mark. The court also ordered the Defendants to transfer their domain name to the Plaintiff along with payment of Rs. 50,000 as damages and Rs. 10,000 towards litigation costs to the Plaintiff.
1. Mr. Pavan Jambagi v. Lemonpepper Hospitality Pvt Ltd & Ors., CS(COMM) 290/2019
COPYRIGHT
MADRAS HC HALTS “AAROMALEY” RELEASE
RS Infotainment (Petitioner), producer of Tamil film “Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa (VTV)” filed a petition against Mini Studio LLP (Defendants), the makers of film “Aaromaley”, before the Madras HC. The petitioner claimed that they co-produced the movie “VTV” with Escape Artists Motion Pictures in 2010 and held all the rights including its reproduction, adaptation and public communication, and therefore, usage of its songs and background music without prior consent of the Plaintiffs amounted to copyright infringement. Accepting the contentions, the Madras HC issued an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using any visual footage or background music in the film “Aaromaley” until primary hearing’s decision.
1.RS Infotainment v. Mini Studio LLP, OA 1086 of 2025
PATENT
MASIMO WINS PATENT BATTLE AGAINST APPLE
Masimo Corporation (Plaintiff) filed a patent-infringement suit against Apple Inc. (Defendant) before the U.S. District Court in California. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant’s Apple Watch model’s workout mode and heart rate notification features infringed its patent technology covering a method of measuring blood-oxygen levels. The Defendant contended that its device is a consumer wearable watch and not a “patient monitor” and that the patent right over the technology had expired a year ago. The U.S. federal jury decided in favour of the Plaintiff and ordered the Defendant to pay $634 million in damages for the infringement. The Defendant has stated that it disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal the decision.
1.Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-00048
MISCELLANOUS
MONDELEZ INDIA LAUNCHES LOTUS BISCOFF
Mondelez India recently launched Lotus Biscoff cookies in India with an aim to make India the top three countries for the world famous Biscoff brand. Mondelez has signed a licensing deal with Belgium’s Lotus Bakeries, according to which, Lotus bakeries have given Mondelez the right to produce, sell and market Biscoff in India in exchange for royalties. The premium cookies will be manufactured at Mondelez’s Alwar facility in Rajasthan and will be distributed widely across the market through retail stores, supermarkets, e-commerce websites and quick delivery apps. This partnership highlights how brand collaborations and licensing can accelerate brand expansion, ensuring both brand protection and market adaptability.
MISCELLANOUS
MEITY RELEASES DPDP GUIDELINES
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has released its comprehensive “India AI Governance Guidelines” on 5 November 2025, as part of the Data Protection and Data Privacy Act, passed in 2023 and which is aimed at enabling safe, inclusive, and responsible adoption of artificial intelligence across sectors. It is based on the principles of “Innovation over Restraint”. The framework is composed of four key components:
i. Seven guiding principles (or “sutras”) for ethical and responsible usage of AI consisting Trust is the Foundation; People First; Innovation over Restraint; Fairness & Equity; Accountability; Understandable by Design; and Safety, Resilience & Sustainability.
ii. Recommendations across six pillars of governance consisting Infrastructure, Capacity Building, Policy & Regulation, Risk Mitigation, Accountability, and Institutions.
iii. An action plan for short, medium, and long-term goals to guide India’s AI ecosystem through measured and sustainable growth.
iv. Practical guidelines for industry, developers and regulators to ensure transparent and accountable deployment.
MeitY has adopted the framework through a whole-of-government approach using existing laws while keeping the overall structure flexible and innovation-friendly. The guidelines collectively establish a forward-looking roadmap that prioritizes real-world impact, harnesses Digital Public Infrastructure, and aims to make the benefits of AI easily available across the society.
