IPR Updates - April 2025

The Philips DVD SEP Case: Delhi HC’s Ruling on Foreign Applications

The case of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. (March 27, 2025, reported in April) is a landmark judgment on SEP enforcement and patent infringement liability in India. It clarifies obligations for patent holders and licensees, impacting tech industries reliant on standardized technologies.

This case is a landmark judgment concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and their enforcement in India. The court found Philips’ patent for a “Method of Converting Information Words to a Modulated Signal” valid and enforceable. The case also addressed issues related to indirect infringement, royalty determination based on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) principles, and the implications of failing to disclose information to the patent office. The court awarded damages to Philips, including additional damages due to the defendants’ wilful infringement and failure to disclose sales records.

Shielding Fame and Credibility: Courts Extend Personality Rights to Doctors

In Dr Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. vs. Medicine Me & Ors., the Delhi High Court addressed a case involving the misuse of Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty’s name, likeness and persona on social media by unidentified entities promoting fake health products. The defendants operated Facebook pages that exploited his identity and the trademarks of Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd. for illicit commercial gains, misleading the public. The court issued an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from misusing Dr. Shetty’s persona or Narayana Hrudayalaya’s trademarks for any unauthorized purposes. The Bench also ordered the removal of infringing content from social media platforms, emphasizing the need to protect public trust and the rights of professionals against deceptive practices.

Protecting a Legacy - MARRIOTT Secures Trademark Victory

In a significant win for intellectual property rights, the Delhi High Court in case of Marriot worldwide Corporation vs Hotel Marriot Prime & anr., has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the globally renowned hospitality giant, MARRIOTT International. The case dealt around trademark infringement by a Mumbai-based hotel operating under the name “HOTEL PRIME MARRIOT”, using the exact spelling of the plaintiff's globally recognized “MARRIOTT” brand. The plaintiff, boasting multiple trademark registrations for “MARRIOTT” and its formative marks in India, alleged that the defendants’ actions diluted the brand's goodwill and misled the public. Interestingly, Defendant No. 2, a marketing agency acting on behalf of Defendant No. 1, raised no objection to the decree being passed. Defendant No. 1, however, chose not to appear in court, further highlighting the deliberate nature of the infringement. Recognizing the intentional violation, the Court ruled in favour of MARRIOTT International, granting a permanent injunction and imposing a penalty of INR 5,00,000 on Defendant No. 1. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the sanctity of trademarks and protecting businesses from unauthorized exploitation.

AI Impersonation Alert: Rajat Sharma Fights for His Identity

In the case of Rajat Sharma and India Tv vs Unauthorised users, the Delhi High Court issued an injunction to protect journalist Rajat Sharma and India TV’s intellectual property rights. Sharma accused several entities of using his persona and the channel’s trademarks to promote fake medical products. The defendants allegedly used deepfakes, AI-generated content and manipulated footage to mislead the public. The court barred further misuse and ordered content removal, emphasizing the importance of protecting journalists’ identities and public trust.

Trademark or Tradition? The Spicy Schezwan Chutney Clash

In the case of Capital Foods Ltd vs Dabur India ltd, the Delhi High Court is set to decide whether “Schezwan Chutney” is a trademarked term or a generic one. Capital Foods, which markets “Ching’s Schezwan Chutney,” claims the term is strongly associated with its brand and accuses Dabur of infringing on its trademark by using the name prominently on similar packaging for its 2024 product line. Capital Foods alleges this misleads consumers and violates its copyright. Dabur, however, argues that “Schezwan Chutney” is a generic term describing the product's type and quality, and granting exclusive rights would create an unfair monopoly. Dabur has also filed a plea to cancel the trademark registration, asserting it lacks necessary disclaimers. The court will hear Dabur's plea on February 5, 2025 with the main matter scheduled for later in February

Flying Beast into Legal Turbulence: The Zero-Gravity Campaign Dispute

In a copyright dispute, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Castrol India Ltd. against YouTuber Gaurav Taneja, also known as The Flying Beast In the case of Castrol India Ltd. vs. Gaurav Taneja. The case dealt with Castrol's “Castronomy” marketing campaign, which showcased its technological achievements through a zero-gravity flight experience. Castrol alleged that Gaurav Taneja violated their copyright by uploading campaign content on his YouTube channel without consent, omitting references to Castrol and the campaign. Castrol, which had financed the entire campaign and held exclusive copyrights over the content, argued that Taneja breached their agreement by failing to deliver the content in the required format and using it for personal gain. Despite receiving notices, Taneja did not appear before the court. The court found Castrol to be the rightful copyright owner under the Copyright Act, 1957 and ruled that Taneja’s actions constituted a clear infringement. The court ordered the removal of the unauthorized content, recognizing the financial and reputational harm caused to Castrol, and restrained Taneja from further using the material. The matter is scheduled for further hearings.

Game of Clones: Delhi High Court Protects Rummy Circle’s Empire

In Play Games 24X7 Private Limited vs. R Y Easy Shop Private Limited case, the Delhi High Court issued a John Doe order in favour of Games24x7, the operator of the online gaming platform Rummy Circle, against multiple websites accused of copyright and trademark infringement. The lawsuit claimed that these websites copied Rummy Circle’s design and content, misrepresented the company's founders, and used the platform's trademark to promote illegal gambling sites. Games24X7 alleged that the infringing sites employed a bait-and-switch tactic, initially displaying a fake Rummy Circle page to lure users before redirecting them to unauthorized platforms. The court ruled that these actions clearly violated Games24X7’s intellectual property rights. It ordered that the infringing websites be taken down and prohibited the use of Rummy Circle’s trademark, design, or the names of its founders.

Zen Technologies Powers Up Defence Training with Indian Patent for T-72 Gunnery Simulator

Zen Technologies has been granted an Indian Patent for its advanced “T-72 Containerized Crew Gunnery Simulator System” (T-72 CGS), marking its 11th patent of the financial year 2024-25. The T-72 CGS is an innovative training tool designed to enhance the gunnery skills of T-72 tank commanders and gunners by simulating battlefield conditions. The system features an immersive experience, replicating tasks such as target acquisition, ammunition selection, and firing to prepare personnel for real-world combat. Its containerized design allows for quick deployment and cost-effective localized training. With customizable scenarios and a motion platform, the T-72 CGS promotes both individual proficiency and crew integration, supporting India's goal of selfreliance and defence sector indigenization.

IKEA vs. IKEY: Court Blocks Trademark Infringement of Global Brand

The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favour of Inter IKEA Systems BV against the defendant, prohibiting the use of the trademark “IKEY” or any confusingly similar mark. The plaintiff, IKEA, sought to prevent the defendant from selling or advertising goods under “IKEY”, claiming trademark infringement and passing off. IKEA, a globally recognized brand, argued that the defendant's use of “IKEY” in connection with home interior products like tiles, plumbing materials, and paints misled consumers into associating it with IKEA. Despite the defendant’s claim of honest use, the court found the adoption of “IKEY” to be dishonest, aimed at exploiting IKEA’s goodwill. The defendant was restrained from using the name “IKEY” in their business, including on their website and in promotional materials.

Beyond the Label: Why the Madras HC’s Ruling on Well-Known Marks Matters

In the case between Paragon (footwear brand) and Paragon Engineers (dealing in electrical products), both parties claimed rights to the “PARAGON” trademark. The footwear brand used it since 1975, and the engineering firm since 1986. Both asserted that their trademarks were “well-known”. The central issue was whether a well-known trademark in one class could block registration of an identical mark in another class. The Madras High Court ruled that a mark does not automatically acquire “well-known” status and that this status operates prospectively. The Court emphasized that well-known recognition is earned over time and cannot be applied retrospectively. The decision clarified that a trademark’s well-known status can only apply to future uses, not earlier disputes. This ruling aligns with principles from the Delhi High Court’s Vans judgment, but it raises concerns about fairness for trademarks that have established a reputation before being officially declared well-known. The judgment may create challenges for trademarks recently recognized as well-known, potentially making enforcement difficult unless confusion or dilution can be shown.

BlackBerry’s Auto-Selection Tech to Be Patented: Delhi HC’s Key Ruling on Section 3(k)

In the case BlackBerry Limited v. The Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of BlackBerry Limited in an appeal concerning its patent application for the “Auto-Selection of Media Files” invention (Application Number 717/DEL/2009). The Indian Patent Office had initially refused the patent under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which excludes business methods and computer programs. BlackBerry contended that its invention, designed to allow the downloading of different quantities of content to devices connected to the same server, addresses a technical problem and results in a significant technical advancement.

The court overturned the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents, concluding that while some aspects of the invention, such as generating confidence levels based on likeability, were non-technical, they served a technical purpose and contributed to solving a technical problem. The court noted that the invention's features of dynamic synchronization and efficient content management were not disclosed in prior art. As a result, the court directed the Indian Patent Office to grant the patent, subject to the amendment of claim one to emphasize the invention's novel technical aspects, particularly the “automatic selection” of media files and updating by a cache manager. The case also highlighted the court’s distinction between technical methods and business methods in patent law. In an earlier case, the court dealt with the patent application titled “Methods and Devices for Authentication of an Electronic Payment Card using Electronic Token.” The controller had rejected this application under Section 3(k), categorizing it as a business method and a computer program. However, the Delhi High Court clarified that while the purpose of an invention may relate to a business activity, its implementation must be examined to determine if it results in a technical process rather than a mere business concept.