TRADEMARK
CLASSIC LEGENDS WINS “YEZDI” TM DISPUTE
Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd., co-founded by Boman R Irani (Appellant) filed an appeal in a trademark infringement suit before the Karnataka HC against Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd. (Respondent) for restoring the right to use the name and logo of “Yezdi”, for their motorcycles. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent company was liquidated long ago and that their trademark had lapsed and had entered the public domain, thereby allowing third-party applications for the trademark “Yezdi”. The Respondent however argued that the trademark still remained the company’s asset even after liquidation and that registrations by the Appellant were invalid.
The Karnataka HC consequently overturned the 2022 single-judge bench’s decree and held the Respondent never treated the trademark as an asset and did not take any steps to revive the ownership in the last 15 years. The court therefore, allowed the appeal and restored the Appellant’s rights to use the “Yezdi” trademark for its motorcycles.
1. Boman R. Irani v. The Official Liquidator of Ideal Jawa, OSA NO. 2/2023
TRADEMARK
HERMÈS BAGS RECOGNIZED AS A WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK
Hermès International & Anr. (Plaintiffs) filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit before the Delhi HC against Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. (Defendants) alleging advertisement of identical “Birkin” bags without authorization. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants had been using the identical “Birkin” bags for sales and advertising purposes. It also claimed that the brand holds global reputation and trademark registrations in various countries and had sought the label of a “well-known” trademark in some countries. The Defendant affirmed that it had never manufactured or sold identical “Birkin” bags and had already closed its business operations. The Delhi HC therefore recognized Birkin bag’s 3-D shape, the “Hermès” word mark, and stylised logos as a “well-known” trademark under Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
1.Hermes International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 716/2021
TRADEMARK
BEYOND MEAT HELD LIABLE FOR TM INFRINGEMENT
Vegadelphia Foods (Plaintiff) brought a trademark infringement suit before the United States District Court of Massachusetts against Beyond Meat Inc. (Defendant) for infringing their registered trademark “Where Great Taste Is Plant-Based”. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant has been using slogans such as “Great Taste Plant-Based” and “Plant-Based Great Taste,” in advertising which resembled their registered trademark. The Plaintiff further claimed that these slogans were violating their trademark rights and are likely to create confusion among the consumers. The Defendant rejected these claims stating that the slogans merely represent the qualities of its plant-based products. The jury ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and held that the slogans used by the Defendant violated the plaintiff’s trademark rights and were likely to create confusion among the consumers. It further ordered the Defendant to pay $38.9 million as damages to the Plaintiff.
1. Vegadelphia Foods v. Beyond Meat Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:23-cv-10690
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HC CANCELS “SWASTIK” LABEL COPYRIGHT
Rajani Products (Plaintiff) filed a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Natural India Oils and Proteins (Defendant), alleging imitation of its “Swastik” label. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant replicated various components including colour scheme, logo placement and overall layout displayed on their ‘Swastik’ label.
The Court agreed with the Plaintiff and held that the Defendant’s label lacked originality and had copied key features of Plaintiff’s label. It therefore ordered immediate removal of the Defendant’s copyright registration from the Register of Copyrights.
1.Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S Natural India Oils and Proteins & Anr., C.O. (COMM.IPD-CR) 16/2024
COPYRIGHT
NESCO BOOKED FOR RS. 8 CRORE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION
Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Complainant) lodged a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), India, against Nesco Ltd. (Respondent) for large scale copyright violations. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent played copyrighted songs at its commercial venues between 2023 and 2025 without obtaining the required licenses or authorization. It further stated that despite issuing multiple legal notices to the Respondent for the copyright violations, they continued with the unauthorized use of the songs, causing the Complainant and associated music labels losses amounting to Rs. 8 crores.
The complaint was thereafter transferred to the Mumbai Police Crime Branch and an FIR has been filed with the Goregaon Police Station against the Respondent for alleged copyright violations under Section 51, 63 and 60 of Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The matter is pending for further investigation.
PATENT
THE “OZEMPIC” PATENT DISPUTE
Novo Nordisk (Plaintiff) filed an interim injunction application in a patent infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited & Anr. (Defendants). The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendant from manufacturing and exporting the Semaglutide drug which was in fact patented by the Plaintiff. The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff’s patent was invalid on the grounds of lack of novelty and evergreening attempt.
The Delhi HC refused to grant the interim injunction to the Plaintiff and allowed the Defendants to manufacture and export the drug to countries where the Plaintiff does not hold patent registrations. However, the court also ordered that the Defendants cannot sell the drug in India till the expiry of the Plaintiff’s patent on March 20, 2026.
1.Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 565/2025
PATENT
BOBCAT – CATERPILLAR PATENT DISPUTE
Doosan Bobcat Company (Plaintiff) has filed a patent infringement suit across various jurisdictions, including the U.S. District Court of Texas, U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) as well as in various European Courts against Caterpillar Inc. (Defendant) for infringing its patent rights. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant used various construction equipment such as skid-steer loaders and excavators that involved patented technologies owned by the Plaintiff, thereby violating its patent rights. The Plaintiff claims monetary damages from the U.S. District Court of Texas and an import ban from the ITC to prevent the infringing construction equipment of the Defendant from entering the U.S. market.
