TRADEMARK
RELIEF DENIED IN “HOM” TM DISPUTE
Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) filed an interim relief application before the Bombay HC against Fundamental Hospitality Pvt Ltd and Anr. (Defendants), to restrain the Defendants from using the mark “HOM”. The Plaintiff asserted that it has been using the marks “House of Mandarin” & “HOM” for years and has built a goodwill and reputation among the consumers, and the Defendant’s use of “HOM” would lead to trademark infringement and passing off of its mark. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff had no exclusive rights over the acronym “HOM” as they had obtained registrations for the composite mark “House of Mandarin”.
The court rejected the application holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement. It observed that the restaurant was identified by the mark “House of Mandarin” and mere use of acronym “HOM” without any evidence or public recognition does not by itself establish any trademark rights.
1.Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt Ltd v. Fundamental Hospitality Pvt Ltd and Anr, IA(L) No.35432/2025 in Commercial IP (L) NO.35330/2025
TRADEMARK
LADY GAGA WINS “MAYHEM” TM DISPUTE
Lost International LLC (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement suit before the U.S. District Court against the globally well-known singer Lady Gaga (Defendant), to prevent her from using the mark ‘Mayhem’. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s use of the word “Mayhem” on merchandise associated with her new album, infringed on its registered trademark and could cause consumer confusion and dilute its brand.
The court refused to grant an injunction holding that the Respondent’s use of “Mayhem” was artistically relevant and unlikely to cause consumer confusion, and therefore did not constitute trademark infringement.
1. Lost International, LLC v. Stefani Joanne Germanotta, et al., SA CV 25-0592 FMO (KESx)
TRADEMARK
“WESTEND GREENS” TM DISPUTE
Westend Green Farms Society (Appellant) filed an appeal before the Delhi HC against one Vicky Kakkar (Respondent), seeking to restrain him from exhibiting the name “Westend Greens” on his residential signboards. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent’s act of displaying the words “Westend Greens” outside his property constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The Respondent however argued that the name was only used as a location reference and not in the course trade.
The Court upheld the Commercial Court’s decision stating that the Appellant had failed to prove a valid cause of action for trademark infringement. It further observed that mere use of the name, without any commercial activity does not give rise to trademark or passing-off claims.
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC RESTRAINS THE USE OF “HP+ MARK”
Ganraj Enterprises & Ors. (Appellants) filed an appeal before the Delhi HC against Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr. (Respondents), challenging the order of the Commercial Court. The Appellant claimed that they have been rightfully using the mark since 2014 and challenged the territorial scope of the Respondent’s mark. The Respondents contended that the Appellants had been deceptively using their mark through similar packaging, colour scheme, and had even illegally used the ‘®’ symbol without obtaining any trademark registrations.
The Delhi HC upheld the decision of the lower court and stated it’s a prima facie case of infringement as the mark used by Appellant is deceptively similar to the Respondent’s mark, and the mark used by Appellants, including the ‘®’ symbol, was likely to mislead consumers. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.
COPYRIGHT
THE “HOMEBOUND” COPYRIGHT DISPUTE
Puja Changoiwala (the Plaintiff) initiated copyright infringement proceedings against Dharma Productions and others (the Defendants) before the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, as part of the mandatory pre-institution mediation process required prior to filing a commercial suit before the High Court under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants’ movie “Homebound” has blatantly copied her novel titled “Homebound”, which was published in 2021. The Plaintiff had served a legal notice on the Defendants detailing the specific scenes that allegedly infringe her copyrighted work, further stating that the film’s script was written one year after the publication of her novel. The Defendants have not issued any statement in response to the case. The Plaintiff intends to seek a permanent injunction restraining the distribution of the film, removal of all infringing content, a change in the title of the film, and compensation for the alleged infringement.
COPYRIGHT
KAPIL SHARMA SUED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Phonographic Performance Limited (Plaintiff) filed a copyright infringement suit before the Bombay HC against K9 Films Private Limited (Defendant), for unauthorized use of its songs on ‘The Great India Kapil Show’. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant used three songs in its episodes, which were played before a live audience and later aired online, without obtaining a license from the Plaintiff. Further, stated that such use constituted public performance and communication to the public under the Copyright Act, 1957, for which obtaining a license is mandatory. The Plaintiff also asserted that it had previously issued a cease-and-desist notice, to which the Defendant provided only a holding reply and continued to play the songs thereafter. The Plaintiff has sought interims relief, including an injunction restraining the use of sound recording without a license, and the appointment of a court receiver to seize devices containing the recordings.
COPYRIGHT
SCRIPTWRITER WINS COPYRIGHT CASE OVER “KARMAYODHA”
Regi Mathew (Plaintiff) filed a copyright infringement suit before the Commercial Court of Kottayam against Major A.K. Raveendran and Ors. (Defendants), seeking a permanent injunction and damages for the alleged unauthorized use of his script. The Plaintiff claimed authorship of the film “Karmayodha”, written in 2011–12, and alleged that the Defendants delayed his remuneration and later ceased communication. The Plaintiff subsequently learned of an adaptation of his screenplay, issued a legal notice to Defendants, however, they continued with the film without granting him credit, which led to the present case. The Plaintiff produced documentary evidences, including copies of the screenplay, and dialogues, as well as a cheque issued by Defendant for writing the script. The Plaintiff also examined witnesses who testified to having seen him work on the script at the Defendant’s flat. The Defendants contended that, under the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer or director is the first owner of the copyright in the cinematograph film, and further alleged that the Plaintiff had stolen the script and falsely claimed ownership.
The Court, upon examining the evidence produced, held that the Plaintiff was the absolute owner of the copyright of the script and granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from reproducing, publishing, remaking, or translating the work into another language. Further, the court noted that there was no record to determine the total profit earned by the Defendants, however, it awarded reasonable compensation amounting to thirty lakh rupees.
1.Regi Mathew v. Major A.K. Raveendran and Ors, Commercial Suit No.404/2021
PATENT
MADRAS HC PERMITS INVENTOR TO EXHIBIT INVENTION
Kannan Gopalakrishnan (Plaintiff) filed a writ petition before the Madras HC against the Controller of Patents (Defendant), challenging an order passed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had dismissed his patent application titled “Solar Supplemental Power Source”, a mechanical system capable of generating electricity without sunlight. The Defendant rejected the application under Section 3(a) of the Patents Act, 1970, stating that the invention was frivolous and contrary to well-established natural laws. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a review petition, contending that a working prototype existed and could be demonstrated, and attached links to videos and details of the prototype. However, the review petition was also dismissed by the Defendant. Consequently, the Plaintiff filed the present petition seeking an opportunity to demonstrate his invention.
The Court directed the Defendant to permit the exhibition of the Plaintiff’s physical prototype, holding that an invention should not go to waste without being tested in practice. The Court allowed the Plaintiff to display his prototype within a period of four weeks, observing that granting such relief would uphold the principles of equity and fair hearing.
