TRADEMARK
BATA WINS “POWER” TM DISPUTE
Earlier Bata India (Respondent) had successfully challenged Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) in the Delhi High Court against it using the trademark “POWER FLEX”. The Appellant challenged the decision of the single judge, who had granted an interim injunction preventing the Appellant from using the trademark ‘POWER FLEX’ for footwear. The Respondent claimed that the use of the mark by the Appellant infringes on the registered mark ‘Power’ of the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent also filed another appeal, seeking to restrain the Appellant from using the slogan, “The Power of Real Leather,” stating it infringes the registered trademark of the Respondent.
The court dismissed both appeals holding that the Appellant’s mark is similar to the Respondent’s mark and is likely to create consumer confusion. However, it allowed use of the tagline “The Power of Real Leather” holding no real infringement of the trademark.
1.Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd., FAO(OS) (COMM)105/2019 & FAO(OS) (COMM) 193/2019
TRADEMARK
RELIEF GRANTED IN “FEDEX” TM DISPUTE
Federal Express Corporation (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Bombay HC against Fedex Securities Private Ltd. & Ors. (Defendant) for using its trademark ‘FedEx’. The Plaintiff claimed that it holds multiple ‘FedEx’ trademark registrations in India and was declared a well-known trademark in 2024. It further alleged that the Defendant’s use of “FEDEX” in their name was likely to cause confusion amongst the consumers. The Defendant on the other hand argued that its name originated from a past association of its directors with Federal Bank and sought protection under Section 159(5) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court held that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s trademark rights as it is phonetically identical to the Plaintiff’s mark. It further stated that the Plaintiff has a prima facie case of passing off and infringement against the Defendant.
1. Federal Express Corporation v. Fedex Securities Private Ltd. & Ors., IA 820/2021 in Comm IPR Suit No. 1406/2019
TRADEMARK
AIR INDIA WINS THE “VISTARA” TM DISPUTE
Air India Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a trademark rectification petition before the Bombay HC against Girish Basrimalani (Defendant) for using the mark “VISTARRAAH”. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant’s mark was phonetically, visually and structurally deceptively similar to its “well-known” registered trademark “VISTARA” and is likely to create confusion among the consumers. The court allowed the rectification petition, upholding the Plaintiff’s contentions and directed the removal of the Defendant’s trademark from the Register of Trade Marks.
COPYRIGHT
DPIIT MAKES MUSIC LICENSING MANDATORY FOR WEDDINGS
The Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has recently withdrawn its public notice dated 24 July 2023, which earlier exempted weddings and related celebrations from obtaining a music license for copyrighted music/songs. The earlier notice clarified that playing recorded music at wedding functions, sangeet, DJ nights and cocktail parties did not require a copyright music license, however, the notice was subsequently withdrawn following an ongoing litigation pending before the Punjab and Haryana HC in Novex Communications vs Union of India.
The withdrawal restores copyright enforcement rights of Novex Communications, a major music licensing company, requiring public to once again obtain valid music licenses from copyright holders to use their music. It was also held that failure to do so may result in legal actions s of injunctions, damages or criminal prosecution against such unauthorized users. Until the issue is finally decided by the courts, the event organizers would still require to obtain appropriate licenses to avoid the risk of for infringement.
SUNIL GAVASKAR MOVES DELHI HC TO PROTECT PERSONALITY RIGHTS
Sunil Gavaskar (Plaintiff) filed a suit before the Delhi HC against Cricket Tak (popular sports media platform) & Ors. (Defendant) seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights. The Plaintiff asserted that he sought to restrain the unauthorized use of his name, images, and likeness by social media platforms and e-commerce websites.
The Delhi HC first clarified that individuals seeking takedown of objectionable online content must approach the concerned social media platforms first before seeking judicial intervention. Accordingly, the Court directed social media platforms to treat the present suit as a complaint under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and to take an appropriate action within seven days to take down the alleged objectionable content. Further, it directed the Plaintiff to provide specific infringing URLs for removal.
1.Sunil Gavaskar v. Cricket Tak & Ors, 2025 livelaw (Del) 1698
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HC RESTRAINS “MASK” FILM OVER UNLICENSED SONG USE
Saregama India Limited (Plaintiff) filed a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Black Madras Films & Ors for unauthorized use of a Kannada Song in the film “Mask”. The Plaintiff claimed ownership of the copyright in the song “Naguva Nayana” from the film Pallavi Anu Pallavi released in 1983, pursuant to a copyright assignment executed in 1980. The assignment covered the sound recording as well as the underlying musical and literary works. The Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants had used the song as background music in their film without obtaining a license. Consequently, the Plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice, calling upon the Defendants to regularize the unauthorized use. The Defendants however contended that they had obtained a license from the music composer, Ilaiyaraaja, to adapt and use the song, which the Plaintiff, refuted, asserting that the composer was not the copyright owner and therefore lacked the authority to grant such a license. The Delhi High Court held that, in accordance with Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, the Plaintiff alone had the authority to license the song and not the composer. Accordingly, the Court directed the Defendants to either remove the song from the film or deposit a sum of ₹30 lakhs before releasing the film on any online platforms.
COPYRIGHT
DISNEY-OPENAI $1 BILLION AGREEMENT
A landmark agreement has been entered into between The Walt Disney and OpenAI for the licensing of Disney’s intellectual property for use with Sora, an AI video generation model developed by OpenAI. Under this collaboration, Sora will be able to generate videos featuring a licensed selection of Disney-owned characters, costumes, props, vehicles, and iconic environments including characters from Marvel, Star Wars. Cinderella and others. While the agreement expressly excludes talent likenesses and voices, Sora will be able to generate fan-inspired images within seconds based on brief text prompts, subject to licensing and safety safeguards. As part of the collaboration, Disney will make a USD 1 billion equity investment in OpenAI and will further leverage OpenAI’s tools to develop new products, features, and experiences across its platforms. The agreement may also allow selected Sora-generated videos to be shown on Disney+ platform, beginning in early 2026.
PATENT
TCS HELD LIABLE FOR TRADE SECRET MISUSE
Tata Consultancy Services Limited (Appellant) filed an appeal before the US Court of Appeals against Computer Sciences Corporation (Respondent), challenging the decision of the District Court of Texas. The Respondent alleged that the Appellant illegally obtained and used their confidential information for the development of its BaNCS software, thereby committing trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). The Court upheld the District Court’s decision, stating the Appellant was liable for maliciously acquiring the manuals of the Respondent without their consent, and awarded $194 million in damages for misappropriating the Plaintiff’s trade secrets. The court further reversed the previous injunction order to conduct business using BaNCS software and remanded the matter back to the District Court for reassessment.
