TRADEMARK
TM REGISTRY SETS ASIDE ORDER IN ‘NANDINI’ TM DISPUTE
The Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (Plaintiff) filed an appeal before the Madras HC challenging the Trademark Registry’s order permitting Shalimar Agarbatti Company & Ors (Respondents) to use the mark ‘Nandini’ for agarbattis and dhoops under class 3. Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark “NANDINI” in Class 29 for milk and dairy products and has been using the mark since 1983, as a result of which it has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation. The Plaintiff argued that the Respondents had adopted an identical and deceptively similar mark, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion and misplaced association in the minds of consumers, which was diluting their registered trademark. The Trade Marks Registry had rejected the opposition on the ground that “Nandini” is a common name and since the goods and trade channels of the parties were different, no exclusivity could be claimed over the mark. The Madras HC overturned the Trademark Registry’s order, and held that the Registry failed to properly assess phonetic similarity, visual resemblance, and the overall impression of the competing marks. The court mentioned that the present case differs from Supreme Court’s landmark judgement in Nandhini Deluxe v. KMF, as the impugned mark here did not contain any distinguishing prefix or suffix. Further, the court held that a mark with a strong reputation is entitled to protection even in respect of dissimilar goods under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Accordingly, the Registry’s order was set aside.
1.M/s. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v. Vinod Kanji Shah & Nitin Kanji Shah, Trading as Shalimar Agarbatti Company. (T)CMA(TM)No.112 of 2023.
TRADEMARK
NO EXCLUSIVE TM RIGHTS IN ENGLISH ALPHABETS
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed an interim relief suit before the Delhi HC against Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant) alleging infringement of its trademark ‘A TO Z’. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s mark ‘MULTIVEIN AZ’ used for multivitamin products infringed its well-known trademarks ‘A TO Z’ and ‘A TO Z-NS’ marks, which it has been using continuously since 1998 for health supplements, and that the Defendant’s use of a similar logo and trade dress amounted to passing off and dilution of the Plaintiff’s trademark. The Defendant countered that ‘A TO Z’ is a generic and descriptive term signifying completeness and that English alphabets cannot be monopolised. Further, the Defendant contended that the dominant part of its mark was “MULTIVEIN”, which was distinctive, and that there were sufficient visual, phonetic, and conceptual differences between the competing marks. It also pointed out that the Plaintiff does not hold a registered word mark for ‘A TO Z’ in Class 5 for pharmaceutical products.
The Delhi HC held that “A TO Z” is descriptive in nature and ‘publici juris’, and therefore incapable of exclusive monopolisation. Further, it observed that English alphabets cannot be protected as trademarks merely by registration, especially in the absence of prima facie proof of acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court found no deceptive similarity between the marks as a whole and held that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. Hence, the petition was dismissed.
1. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd. 2026: DHC:411
TRADEMARK
SHAADI.COM GRANTED WELL-KNOWN TM STATUS
People Interactive India Private Limited (Plaintiff) filed a suit in the Bombay HC against Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors. (Defendants) for trademark infringement and passing off its well-known matrimonial service “Shaadi.com”. The Plaintiff asserted that its continuous commercial use of the mark since 2000, supported by millions of registered users and substantial advertising investment had fueled its consistent growth and that the Defendants’ use of the domain “getshaadi.com” for identical services directly infringed their rights and was a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers and dilute the brand’s distinctiveness through the use of meta-tags and keywords, allegedly diverting website traffic.
The Bombay HC ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting “Shaadi.com” a well-known mark status, with protection beyond the matrimonial sector. Accordingly, the Court issued a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using “getshaadi.com” or any deceptively similar marks or domains. Further, the Defendants were directed to pay ₹25 lakh in costs within 12 weeks, with 8% interest applicable thereafter.
1. People Interactive India Private v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors. 2026: BHC-OS:685
TRADEMARK
AAJ TAK LOGO PROTECTED FROM TM INFRINGEMENT
Living Media India Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit before the Delhi HC against Charcha Aaj Ki (Defendant) seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction for using a device mark deceptively similar to their registered logo of the news channel “AAJ TAK”. The Plaintiffs asserted that they have continuously used the mark “AAJ TAK” alongside an inherently distinctive logo featuring white Hindi font, a solid red background, and a unique black frame. They further argued that these dominant colors and design elements have acquired secondary meaning, exclusively associating the brand with their news services. While the Plaintiffs did not object to the word mark itself, they challenged the Defendant’s use of an identical red-white-black color scheme, arguing that these visual similarities in the same news sector could cause consumer confusion and misrepresentation amounting to passing off, through unfair leveraging of the Plaintiffs’ reputation.
The Delhi HC found that the Defendant’s logo copied the distinctive red-white-black color combination and outline borders, which could confuse viewers and dilute Plaintiff’s brand identity. While restraining the use of the infringing logo, the Court allowed the Defendant to retain the name “Charcha Aaj Ki”, provided it did not use the infringing design elements.
1.Living Media India Ltd. v. Charcha Aaj Ki, CS(COMM) 15/2026.
COPYRIGHT
NVIDIA FACES COPYRIGHT CLAIMS OVER AI TRAINING
Authors Abdi Nazemian, Bian Keene and Stewart O’Nan (Plaintiffs) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the tech giant Nvidia Corporation (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court of Northern California. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant’s large language models (LLM) were trained using datasets that included millions of their copyrighted books sourced from shadow libraries without authorization. The Plaintiffs have also sought to amend their plaint to add claims stating that the Defendants not only used the infringing material but also encouraged others to access and use the same copyrighted content without NVIDIA permission. They contended that these acts amount to direct infringement of their exclusive copyrights in the books. The court allowed the Plaintiff’s contentions and held that the allegations were sufficient to make out a case of infringement case against the Defendants.
1.Mazemian v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 4:24-cv-01454-JST (N.D.Cal.Jan.15, 2026)
COPYRIGHT
KAMAL HAASAN PROTECTS PERSONALITY RIGHTS
Actor and Rajya Sabha MP Kamal Haasan (Plaintiff) approached the Madras HC seeking to protect his personality rights against unauthorized commercial use. The Plaintiff filed a “John Doe” suit against Neeyevidai and others (Defendants) alleging that his name, image, likeness and popular screen title “Ulaganayagan” were being used on merchandise without his consent, creating a misleading association between him and the products. He contended that such acts damaged his well-established public persona and reputation. The Madras HC found a prima facie case and granted an interim relief in favour of the Plaintiff. The court restrained the Defendants from commercially using and distributing infringing merchandise, while clarifying that the order does not prohibit fair use of material for creative expressions such as satire and caricatures.
COPYRIGHT
EROS MOVES COURT OVER “RAANJHANAA” SEQUEL
Eros International Media Ltd. (Plaintiff) has filed a copyright infringement suit in Bombay HC against filmmaker Aanand L. Rai, his production company Colour Yellow Media Entertainment LLP and others (Defendants) over the film “Tere Ishk Mein”, alleging that the movie was marketed as a “spiritual sequel” to the 2013 hit movie “Raanjhanaa” without valid license or authorization. The Plaintiff claims that it holds exclusive trademark, copyright and sequel rights to the movie “Raanjhanaa” and that despite sending legal notices, the Defendants continued to use promotional materials, referenced characters, music and themes from the movie and unfairly capitalised on the goodwill and brand value of the film, thereby infringing Plaintiff’s IP rights. The Defendant refrained from engaging and stated that such disagreements are a part of routine business and to let the dispute be resolved by legal professionals. The Plaintiff is seeking Rs. 84 crores as damages for alleged trademark, copyright and passing off violations.
PATENT
ABBVIE’S CANCER DRUG FACES PATENT REJECTION
The Indian Patent Office (IPO) has rejected MNC AbbVie’s (Applicant) patent application for its cancer drug Venetoclax, which is used in the treatments for blood cancer, holding that the application did not satisfy the requirements of having an inventive step and enhanced therapeutic efficiency, as required under the Patents Act, 1970. The Applicant still holds patents related to the drug’s composition but has faced multiple oppositions in the court at the pre-grant examination stage. As a result of this patent rejection, the generic drug manufacturers may enter the Indian market and launch their own versions of Venetoclax at affordable prices, potentially improving access to this cancer treatment.
