TRADEMARK
“DELHIVERY” GRANTED PROTECTION AGAINST FAKE DOMAINS
Delhivery Limited (Plaintiff) filed a suit before the Delhi HC against John Doe/ Ashok Kumar (Defendant) seeking ex-parte interim relief against persons operating fake domain names and impersonating them. The Plaintiff, the registered proprietor of the “DELHIVERY” trademark, contended that the Defendants were impersonating them by using deceptively similar domain names such as delhevery.com, delhiverypartner.com, and delhiverydistributars.com to run fake franchise and courier schemes. It alleged that the Defendants falsely represented themselves as authorised Delhivery representatives and extracted money from unsuspecting individuals by offering fraudulent dealership and franchise opportunities. The Plaintiff further asserted long-standing use and substantial goodwill in its mark since 2011.
The Delhi HC found a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, observed that there were deliberate impersonation and misuse of the Plaintiff’s brand. Granting ex parte, ad-interim relief, the Court restrained the Defendants from using the mark “DELHIVERY” or any deceptively similar mark, and directed the suspension of the infringing domain names. The court further ordered banks and telecom service providers to disclose details of the persons involved, holding that continued misuse would cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff and mislead the public.
1.Delhivery Limited v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar and Others; CS(COMM) 61/2026
TRADEMARK
VICKS DENIED EXCLUSIVITY OVER WORD “VAPO”
Procter and Gamble Company (Petitioner) filed trademark rectification petitions before the Madras HC against IPI India Private Limited & Anr. (Respondent), seeking cancellation of the Respondent’s registered marks “VAPORIN,” “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” and other allied device marks. The Petitioner, proprietor of the well-known mark “Vicks VapoRub,” alleged that the Respondent’s adoption of “Vapo”-formative marks was dishonest and amounted to free-riding on the goodwill and reputation of “Vicks VapoRub,” which has been in use internationally since 1890 and in India since 1964. It was further contended that the use of the expression “Vapo” rendered the impugned marks deceptively similar and was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The Respondent argued that the term “Vapo” is derived from the word “vapour,” and is descriptive of vapour-based medicinal preparations, is generic and publici juris, and therefore cannot be monopolised by a single entity. It was further submitted that the registered mark “VAPORIN” maintains a distinct identity through its unique visual appearance, phonetic structure, layout, and trade dress. The Respondent also contended that consumers identify the Petitioner’s products primarily by the dominant brand name “VICKS,” rather than the descriptive term “VAPORUB,” thereby ensuring that no likelihood of market confusion exists between the rival marks.
The Madras HC dismissed the petitions and held that no exclusive rights could be claimed over the term “Vapo,” as it is descriptive, generic, and publici juris. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court noted that “VICKS VAPORUB” and “VAPORIN,” when considered as a whole, are dissimilar and that there is no likelihood of consumer confusion. The Court further observed that trademark law does not permit the monopolisation of descriptive terms merely because a trader has achieved commercial success.
1. The Procter and Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited and Anr; O.P.(TM)Nos. 48, 49 and 50 of 2024.
TRADEMARK
“SAKTHI” TM RESTORED; REGISTRY’S CANCELLATION SET ASIDE
Sakthi Trading Company (Appellant) appealed before the Madras HC against the Trademark Registry (Respondent) in cancelling its registered trademark “SAKTHI,” which had been in continuous use since 1977 without any prior notice. The Appellant contended that the cancellation was affected arbitrarily in May 2025, without issuance of any prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, despite the mark having been duly renewed and subsisting for decades. The Appellant submitted that in early 2023, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks had issued mass abandonment notices affecting several trademark applications. It was further pointed out that the Government had assured the Delhi High Court that such erroneous abandonment actions would be withdrawn and all affected marks restored. Contrary to this assurance, the Registry proceeded to cancel the Appellant’s registration without notice. The Registry sought to justify its action by relying on public notices issued in 2023 and alleged procedural non-compliance. The Defendant defended their actions by relying on the public notices issued in 2023 and alleged failure to comply with procedural requirements.
The Madras HC set aside the cancellation order, holding that the Registry had acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by cancelling a decades-old trademark without notice or hearing. The Court observed that the Respondent’s action was arbitrary, without legal authority, and a nullity in law. Accordingly, the Court directed immediate restoration of the “SAKTHI” trademark within four weeks.
COPYRIGHT
COPYRIGHT CLASH BETWEEN ARTISTS AND AI
Famous actors Scarlett Jonson and Cate Blanchett joined nearly 800 writers, creators and artists in launching the “Stealing Isn’t Innovation” initiative under the banner of “Human Artistry Campaign” against AI companies over the alleged unauthorized use of their creative works. The parties claim that the AI companies harvest copyrighted content from the internet without obtaining consent or providing compensation to the right owners, and use the content to train their generative AI models. The creators contend that this large-scale use of their literary, musical, visual, performance works and personality rights constitutes misappropriation of their intellectual property rights and undermines their creative ownership. The creators suggest the AI companies to sign ethical and transparent licensing deals rather than engaging in rampant unauthorized use of their copyrighted content and relying on legal defences of fair use to justify their unlicensed data scraping.
COPYRIGHT
MUSIC PUBLISHERS SUE ANTHROPIC OVER AI TRAINING
Major music publishers including Concord Music Group, Universal Music Group and ABKCO Music (Plaintiffs) have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against AI company Anthropic PBC (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court of North California. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully used thousands of copyrighted books and songs including lyrics and sheet music of well-known music artist Rolling Stones and Elton John to train its AI chatbot “Claude” without authorization. The Plaintiffs are seeking over $3 billion in damages for infringement of their intellectual property rights. The case is currently in its early stages and remains pending for hearing before the U.S. District Court.
1.Concord Music Group Inc v. Anthropic PBC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:26-cv-00880.
PATENT
PATENT ROW STOPS CANVA’S “PRESENT & RECORD” FEATURE LAUNCH IN INDIA
RxPrism Health Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Appellants) filed an appeal before the Delhi HC against Canva Pty Ltd. & Ors. (Respondents), challenging Single Judge Bench’s order granting interim injunction in favour of the Respondent. The Appellants claimed that the Respondent’s “Present and Record” feature, which allows users to create and share presentations with video overlays and navigation controls, copied their patented technology for creating and sharing content on presentations. The Appellants alleged that they informed the Respondents about the patent and even offered a commercial licence, but Canva continued to offer the feature in India without any authorization. The Respondents denied the alleged infringement stating that the patent infringement claims were wrongly construed, and contested the validity of the patent.
The Delhi HC dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, and upheld the interim injunction restraining them from offering its “Present and Record” feature in India. The court held agreed that the Respondent’s had proved a prima facie case of patent infringement and that the single judge had correctly analysed the patent claims. It noted that minor changes in a patent does not negate infringement if a product incorporates the patented invention’s essential features. The court further directed the Respondents to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs and security for past use and Rs. 5 lakhs in costs towards infringement.
1.Canva Pty. Ltd. &Ors. v. Rx Prism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr; 2026: DHC:659-DB
DATA PRIVACY
META SUED OVER WHATSAPP PRIVACY
In a disturbing instance of privacy infringement, a group of international users (Plaintiffs) have filed a class-action lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc. (Defendants) before the U.S. Court of San Francisco, alleging that the Defendants misled its users about WhatsApp’s privacy policies. The Plaintiffs complained that Defendant’s claims about end-to-end encryption are false and that Meta can allegedly access private WhatsApp chats through their internal systems, which contradicts WhatsApp’s promise that only the sender and recipient can read their private messages. The Defendant denied all the allegations, calling the lawsuit without merit and stated that WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted through signal protocol, which prevents the company from reading user’s messages. The court is still in the process of verifying the suit’s status and if proved, Meta is in for attracting a huge liability.
