TRADEMARK
VOLKSWAGEN LOSES “TRANSFORMOTION” TM DISPUTE
The famous German auto brand Volkswagen AG (Appellant) filed an appeal before the Delhi HC challenging the Registrar of Trade Mark’s decision allowing registration of Maruti Suzuki India Limited’s (Respondent) trademark “TRANSFORMOTION” in Class 12. The Appellant argued that the Respondent’s mark was deceptively similar to its registered trademark “4MOTION,” and could cause confusion among consumers, especially given their use in the automobile sector. The Respondent countered that “TRANSFORMOTION” was a creative wordplay on “transformation,” to convey the transition from analogue to digital technology in its vehicles.
The Delhi HC dismissed the appeal and held that the marks were visually and phonetically distinct. The Court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks and that the similarities were not sufficient to establish infringement. It further noted that the term “MOTION” being common to the automobile trade could not be monopolised. It also emphasized that the products in question are high-value purchases made by the consumers after careful consideration, making consumer confusion unlikely.
1. Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024
TRADEMARK
KATIE PERRY VS. KATY PERRY TM DISPUTE
Australian fashion designer Katie Taylor (Appellant) (who trades under the name “Katie Perry”) initiated proceedings against pop singer Katy Perry and her associated companies (Respondents) before the High Court of Australia, alleging trademark infringement arising from the sale of clothing and merchandise under the name “Katy Perry.” The Appellant argued that she had prior registered rights in the “Katie Perry” mark for clothing and that the Respondent’s merchandise created confusion and encroached upon her brand. In response, the Respondent challenged the validity of the Appellant’s trademark, contending that she had already acquired a substantial reputation in Australia under her stage name and that the Appellant’s mark was likely to mislead consumers due to its similarity.
The High Court ultimately ruled in favour of the Appellant, holding that her “Katie Perry” trademark for clothing was valid and not likely to deceive or cause confusion despite the singer’s fame. It further held that the singer’s reputation, though significant, was not in clothing, and therefore could not be extended to that category without actual evidence of consumer confusion.
1.Katie Jane Taylor v. Killer Queen LLC and Ors., S49/2025
TRADEMARK
ADOBE SUED OVER “FOUNDRY” AI TOOL
The Foundry Visionmongers Ltd. (Plaintiff), a visual effects and content-creation software company, filed a trademark infringement suit against Adobe Inc. (Defendant) before the U.S. District Court of California. The Plaintiff alleged that Adobe’s use of the name “Firefly Foundry” for its generative AI tools infringes its long-standing “Foundry” trademark and could mislead consumers, especially since both companies operate in similar digital content creation markets. It argued that such use dilutes its brand identity and creates a likelihood of confusion. The Plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the Defendant from using the “Foundry” name in connection with its AI product suite, as well as undisclosed monetary damages for the alleged trademark infringement.
1.The Foundry Visionmongers Ltd v. Adobe Inc, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 5:26-cv-02121
COPYRIGHT
BRITANNICA SUES OPENAI FOR COPYRIGHT AND TM INFRINGEMENT
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. and its subsidiary Merriam-Webster (Plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit before a U.S. Federal Court of New York against OpenAI, Inc. (Defendant), the developer of ChatGPT, alleging copyright and trademark infringement. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant unlawfully used its copyrighted content during the training of its AI models without obtaining any licence or authorisation, thereby commercially exploiting the Plaintiff’s intellectual property. They further contended that ChatGPT’s responses occasionally contained verbatim reproductions of its copyrighted articles and that the large-scale assimilation of its content for training its AI training for commercial use, was not protected by fair use. The Plaintiffs also alleged trademark infringement stating that ChatGPT at times falsely attributes misleading information to Britannica thereby damaging its reputation for accuracy and reliability, and that they had diverted the traffic from Britannica and Merriam-Webster websites. In response, the Defendant defended its practices by stating that its models are trained on publicly available data and that such use qualifies as “fair use”. The Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the Defendant to restrain them from the alleged use of infringing content.
1.Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., 1:26-cv-2097
COPYRIGHT
SUN TV NETWROK SUES CHENNAI SUPER KINGS
Sun TV Network Limited (Plaintiff), the media conglomerate owning Sun Pictures, filed a copyright infringement suit before the Madras HC against Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited and Others (Defendants). The Plaintiff accused the Defendants of using music, background scores, and dialogues from the Rajinikanth films in a promotional video for its IPL 2026 jersey launch, across social media platforms, without obtaining a licence. Plaintiffs further submitted that the video was intended to promote CSK’s merchandise, to generate commercial gains from the copyrighted material without authorisation. The Plaintiffs thus sought a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using any songs, dialogues, or background scores from its films across social media, stadium broadcasts, and promotional campaigns. They also demanded Rs. 1 crore in damages and that the Defendant be directed to disclose revenues generated from the promotional campaign. Following the Court order, CSK took down the promotional video and reportedly re-uploaded it with different music.
The Defendant was also asked to file an affidavit undertaking not to display, play, or use any of the sound recordings or musical works without first obtaining a licence.
1.Sun TV Network Limited v. Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited & Ors., O.A. Nos. 212 & 213 of 2026
COPYRIGHT
PPL SECURES INJUNCTION AGAINST LEGENDS LEAGUE CRICKET
Phonographic Performance Limited (Plaintiff), filed an IP suit before the Bombay HC against Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent), the organisers of the Legends League Cricket (LLC) for copyright infringement of its copyrighted sound recordings at the tournament matches, without obtaining the requisite licence. The Plaintiff contended that the Respondent was well aware of its obligation to secure a public performance licence, having obtained licenses in the past whenever matches were organised. Crucially, the Respondent had also furnished an undertaking acknowledging the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights and committing to procure a licence before using its sound recordings at any premises or events under its control. Despite this, no licence was obtained for the 2026 tournament. A legal notice was issued by the Plaintiff but no response was received, giving rise to the well-founded apprehension of infringement.
The Bombay HC noted that this was a preventive suit brought in anticipation of an impending wrong rather than one already committed one. The Court observed that the Respondent’s past conduct of procuring licences was itself indicative of its knowledge that a licence was necessary. Relying on the prior licensing history and the 2023 undertaking, the Court held that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Respondent from playing the Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings during the tournament.
1.Phonographic Performance Limited vs Absolute Legend Sports Private Limited [Commercial Suit (L) 27133 of 2025]
DATA PRIVACY
DIGI YATRA FACES DATA PRIVACY SCRUTINY
A PIL was filed before the Kerala HC by C.R. Neelakandan (Petitioner) against the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Airports Authority of India, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY), and the Digi Yatra Foundation (Respondents), raising concerns over the collection, storage, and processing of sensitive passenger data through digital systems at airports across India, including the Digi Yatra facial recognition-based travel platform. The petitioner argued that the platform collects and processes sensitive personal and biometric data of air travellers without adequate safeguards, potentially violating traveller’s right to privacy. The Kerala HC has issued notice to the Centre and the Digi Yatra Foundation, seeking their response to the allegations. The Court also directed the Petitioner to file an affidavit setting out specific instances where the confidentiality of passenger data is allegedly compromised.
1.C.R. Neelakandan v. Union of India & Ors., WP(PIL) No. 15/2026
COMPETITION LAW
CCI CLOSES ANTITRUST CASE AGAINST BOOKMYSHOW
Vijay Gopal (Complainant) founder of ticketing portal Showtyme, filed a complaint before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in 2021 against Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent), operating BookMyShow, alleging abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002. The Complainant argued that the Respondent entered into exclusive agreements with cinemas, provided interest free loans and incentives to lock them in and charged high convenience fees, thereby, restricting competitor’s access to the market and creating unfair competition. the Respondent denied these allegations, stating that its agreements were standard commercial arrangements, that cinemas voluntarily partnered with it, and that certain practices like seat reservation and variable revenue sharing were necessary for operational and technological reasons.
The Competition Commission of India held that although BookMyShow enjoys a dominant position in the online movie ticket booking market, and there was no sufficient evidence to show that it had abused this dominance. Accordingly, the case was dismissed.
