GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION
THE PRADA – KOLHAPUR COLLABORATION
Post Prada’s appropriation of the Kolhapuri Chappal (Geographical Indications in Maharashtra and Karnataka) designs and the following public outcry from India, about six months ago, Prada not only admitted and apologised for the same, but also agreed to collaborate with the Kolhapuri artisans. The luxury brand has cemented the deal with two government organisations, LIDKAR from Karnataka and LIDCOM from Maharashtra, representing the Kolhapuri producers. Under the deal, the brand has agreed to produce 2000 pairs of Kolhapuris in Maharashtra and Karnataka, using Italian manufacturing techniques to be sold across 40 outlets globally and costing about 800 Euros or Rs. 85,000/pair. This deal will not only commercially benefit the local artisans, but introduce innovation in manufacturing techniques, as well as will put Kolhapuri Chappals on the world map.
TRADEMARK
THE PARACHUTE TM DISPUTE
Marico Limited (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Bombay HC against Minolta Natural Care and Others (Defendants) for using a trade dress that closely resembles that of the Plaintiff’s products. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant copied the visual appearance of the Plaintiff’s Parachute Jasmine products, including the shape, colour, and placement of artwork. The Defendant claimed that the words ‘Jasmine’ and ‘Hair’ are descriptive, and that using the brand name ‘Sangini’ on its products sets the two apart.
The Court held that the rival product is prima facie deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s products and that since both companies sell identical goods, this could lead to consumer confusion. Therefore, the court temporarily restrained the Defendants from using the disputed marks and packaging that are similar to the Plaintiff’s products.
1.Marico Limited v. M/s. Minolta Natural Care and Others, IA(L) 28667/2025 in Commercial IP (L) 28094/2025
TRADEMARK
TOMMY HILFIGER SECURES COURT INJUNCTION
Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Delhi HC against Partha Chatterjee (Defendant) to seek a permanent injunction against the unauthorized use of its “TOMMY HILFIGER” trademarks. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had been supplying counterfeit products bearing marks identical to those of the Plaintiff’s products without authorization. The court observed that the Defendant’s act establishes a nexus to the plaintiff, which might mislead the consumers. It held that this is a clear case of infringement and passing off and awarded Rs. 1.5 lakhs in damages to the Plaintiff.
1. Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV v. Partha Chatterjee, CS(COMM) 1302/2018
COPYRIGHT
DPIIT PROPOSES NEW AI ROYALTY RULES
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) released a working paper titled, ‘One Nation, One License, One Payment: Balancing AI Innovation and Copyright’. This paper recommended various measures such as implementing a mandatory blanket license, by mandating AI firms to pay royalties to creators for using their copyrighted works. It also recommended the establishment of the Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training [CRCAT], a central body to collect the royalties from the AI firms and distribute them among the copyright owners. The approach by the Centre aims to ensure that creators are fairly paid while making it easier for AI developers to legally access content.
COPYRIGHT
ZEE ACCUSED OF 18 CRORE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION
Ronny Sen (Plaintiff), a well-known photographer, filed a copyright infringement suit before the Kolkata Commercial Court against Zee Media Corporation Ltd. (Defendants) for using his 12-second cheetah translocation clip without authorization. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant broadcasted the exclusive footage filmed by the plaintiff, without obtaining a license. The Plaintiff further claimed that the Defendant branded the footage as ‘super exclusive’, thereby removing his credits and damaging his ability to commercially license the clip to others. The Plaintiff claimed significant financial losses and seeks compensation of Rs. 18 Crores in damages from the Defendant. The court admitted the suit and scheduled it for hearing on January 16, 2026.
PATENT
BIOCON LIMITED TO ACQUIRE BIOCON BIOLOGICS
Biocon Limited declared that it will wholly acquire Biocon Biologics as its subsidiary. Biocon Ltd. will acquire the minority stakes of Biocon Biologics, which are held by Serum Institute of Life Sciences, Tata Capital Growth Fund II, etc., making the valuation of the company $5.5 Billion. Biocon believes that integration of the company will strengthen its global position in key therapeutic areas such as diabetes and immunology. It claims that it is ready to address the diabetes market, and is the only global company that operates with biosimilar insulins and generic versions of complex peptides.
PATENT
AUSTRALIA ENDS FORMULATION PATENT TERM EXTENSIONS
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a patent infringement suit before the Australia Federal Court against Sun Pharma ANZ Pty Ltd (Defendant) for violation of its patent rights which was later on transferred to Australia Federal Court. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant had launched generic versions of Abilify Maintena (aripiprazole), and the Plaintiff owns the patent in the pharmaceutical formulation of aripiprazole. The Plaintiff had also obtained a Patent Term Extension (PTE) of the formulation. The Defendant claims that the patent of the Plaintiff did not contain a pharmaceutical substance and was merely the formulation, making the PTE invalid. The court therefore held that PTE will no longer be granted to pharmaceutical formulations and will be granted to patents claiming an active pharmaceutical ingredient.
1.Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v Sun Pharma ANZ Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 161
