Announcing the Finalists of the 1st National Policy Brief Competition on Intellectual Property & Innovation 2025! Posts on Delhi HC’s evolving jurisprudence on pro-tem security deposits in FRAND trials, Supreme Court to decide CCI’s jurisdiction over abuse of patent rights, and the Supreme Court allowing the Petitioners to map their claims against Zydus’s product in Nivolumab infringement dispute. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
After an engaging pre-final round on February 10, we are delighted to announce the finalists of the 1st National Policy Brief Competition on Intellectual Property & Innovation, 2025 organized by SpicyIP and Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM), DPIIT! The finalists will now make their oral presentations on February 27 in Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi, before our panel of distinguished judges, comprising of Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan, Dr Zakir Thomas, and Dr. V.K. Unni For the list of shortlisted teams, check out the post.
‘Pro-tem’ FRAND Deposits: Are temporary orders here to stay?
The Delhi High Court’s evolving jurisprudence on pro-tem security deposits in FRAND trials reflects a significant shift in SEP litigation strategy. Ambika Aggarwal notes that as their application expands, it raises important questions on legal certainty, theoretical justification, and their impact beyond SEP disputes.
SC to decide CCI’s Jurisdiction over abuse of Patent Rights
The Supreme Court has finally agreed to hear whether the CCI has jurisdiction to examine abuse of patent rights, reviving a long-contested debate. With the DHC DB decision asserting that the Patents Act( particularly its compulsory licensing framework) is a “complete code” to address such concerns, Yogesh Byadwal revisits the Ayyangar Committee Report to unpack that claim. He argues that compulsory licensing was designed to ensure wider access and affordability of patented inventions, not to police anti-competitive conduct.
ER Squibb to map Zydus’s product: Does this mean closure?
On 12th January 2025, a division bench of the Delhi HC had allowed Zydus to launch their biosimilar product, ZRC-3276, in the market. The bench had refused to grant an interim injunction against Zydus’s launch because the Patentee had not mapped the product against their claims. As a result, the Court held, it could not arrive at a finding of prima facie finding of infringement. On 11th Feb, the SC allowed the Petitioners to map their claims against Zydus’s product, available in the market as ‘Tishtha’, and approach the DB for appropriate interim directions. It directed Zydus to provide a sample of their product to the Patentee within 24 hours. Yogesh Byadwal writes on the development.
Case Summaries
State vs Satish Gupta & Ors. on 4 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court acquitted Vinod Rathore and Satish Gupta of charges related to raids and seizure of counterfeit automotive parts under Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act. The court clarified that no infringement could be proved by the prosecution since the complainant did not testify and the company expert had expired. The court further held in order to establish counterfeiting, substantive evidence from rights holders or experts was necessary, which was absent. Hence, benefit of doubt was given, and the duo was acquitted.
The Delhi District Court decreed a copyright infringement suit filed by Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. against Mahi Cable Services for unauthorized broadcasting of T-Series songs on its cable network. The defendant was proceeded ex parte against by the court. The claimant received a permanent injunction due to unrebutted evidence and copyright certificates but damages of ₹10 Lakh were not granted as proof was not provided for subscribers or even for damages.
In an interim application alleging trademark infringement and passing off, the Bombay High Court restrained the defendant from using the mark “GYPSTONE”, holding it to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark “GYPTONE”. The Court noted that mere addition of the letter “S” did not create distinctiveness. As the defendant withdrew its trademark applications and filed no reply, interim relief was granted and the Court Receiver was discharged.
In order to settle a long-running dispute over who can run maintenance at the DCM Building, Barakhamba Road, the Delhi Civil Court stepped in and decided the matter. Letters dated 30.12.2013 and 09.01.2014, which threatened to cut water for non-payment, were held void, because the right to water can’t be curtailed and dues, therefore, must be recovered through law, but not by shutting off essential services. Therefore, the plaintiff association was declared the sole valid “Maintenance Society” under the purchase agreement and the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act. When we see this in light of the alleged false affidavit and the similarity of names, Defendant No. 5’s registration was cancelled as invalid. The Court also ordered rendition and handover of accounts and records within 30 days, discharged the Receiver, and nudged elections within three months, just to restore proper democratic functioning.
Satya Paul vs Alka Industrial Corporation And Anr on 9 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Satya Paul filed a petition under Section 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against Alka Industrial Corporation seeking removal cancellation and rectification of “AiC ARUN” in the Register of Trade Marks. The Petitioner claimed prior use and produced evidence to show that they have been the registered proprietor of the trademark “ARUN” since 1962. The Court has allowed the petition and held that the use of mark “AiC ARUN” is identical and deceptively similar to the registered trademark “ARUN”. The Court instead of cancelling the full mark of the respondent has allowed the use of “AiC” (with safe additions) based on their relatively smaller operation.
Surya Roshni Limited vs Supreme Polytubes Limited on 7 February, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
Surya Roshni Ltd. filed a suit against Supreme Polytubes Ltd. seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from trademark infringement and passing off activities with respect to their registered mark “SURYA”. The petitioner had previously received a decree of ad-interim temporary injunction against the respondent whereby the defendant was restrained from infringing the plaintiff’s trademark “SURYA” and its formative marks. A Local Commissioner was also appointed. The Court has granted the relief of permanent injunction on the basis of the report by the Local Commissioner which supports the case of the petitioner. The report of the Local Commissioner was not challenged and thus accepted as evidence.
Union Of European Football vs Livetv.Sx & Ors on 5 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Union of European Football (UEFA), an international, non-governmental, ‘not-for-profit’ organisation, filed a suit against Livetv.sx & Ors. (approx. 23 rogue websites) that illegally streamed its copyrighted UEFA Champions League 2025-26 matches. In India, the Petitioner exclusively licenses the media rights of UCL matches to Culver Max and are live-streamed through ‘SonyLIV’ i.e., broadcaster’s on-demand OTT platform. The Court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction and held that rogue websites engaged in piracy of copyrighted content pose a recurring threat. The court allowed a dynamic relief allowing the Petitioner to implead any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations of the websites.
Leayan Global Private Limited vs Avinash Kumar Chawla on 7 February, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Avinash Kumar Chawla seeking a decree of permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing-off, damages and rendition of accounts. The relief has been claimed against the infringement by the defendant by use of “RED CHIEF” mark/label of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted a decree of ad-interim ex-parte injunction in 2023. The Court granted the relief of permanent injunction in this case. The Court held that the trademark is well-known and infringement was carried out on online platforms as well. The passing-off actions were proved by the Petitioner and Court granted Rs. 3 lakhs in damages with Costs and ordered the Respondent to dispose off/destroy the remaining infringing material.
M/S Modern Mart Pvt Ltd vs Pankaj Gupta Proprietor on 6 February, 2026 (Delhi District Court)
M/S Modern Mart Pvt. Ltd. has filed a suit against Pankaj Gupta Proprietor for seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark and passing-off of petitioner’s registered trademarks “ENGRAVE SKIN”, “EMBOSSED SKIN” and “6D SKIN”. The Court dismissed the suit stating that the marks were registered to Director Aditya Thakkar personally and not to M/S Modern Mart Pvt. Ltd., therefore, no locus standi. The Court highlighted that the petitioner company is new and no proof of long use or reputation has been established. The Court also held that common words “Engrave”, “Embossed” and “6 D SKIN” can be part of a larger, stylized logo, but the registration would not give exclusive rights to the word itself, only to the overall unique design which the petitioner lacks.
Yangtze Memory Technologie Co Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 5 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Yangtze Memory Technologie Co. filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court against the grant of Patent Application No. 20212702090 which consequently closed the opportunity to file a divisional application by the Petitioner. The Court examined primarily the requirements for filing a divisional patent application under Section 16 of the Patents Act. The Court held that the Petitioner had ample time to file divisional applications before the grant of patent (i.e. 3 years). However, the Petitioner at no stage prior to the grant of patent filed any divisional application. The Court dismissed the application of the Petitioner as no prejudice was shown and the grant of patent by Controller was as per the mandate of Section 43 of the Patents Act.
Upl Limited vs Haryana Pesticides Manufactures on 5 February, 2026 (Calcutta High Court)
UPL Ltd. filed an appeal against the order of the Controller rejecting an application for patent based on the pre-grant opposition filed by the Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association. The grounds for dismissal with respect to the invention “HERBICIDAL COMBINATIONS” were lack of novelty, lack of inventive steps, and the invention being a mere admixture and not an invention. The Court held that the statutory scheme of the Act segregates pre-grant opposition proceedings and examination proceedings under Sections 14-15 of the Act and a separate hearing both under sections 25(1) and 14 should have been granted to the appellant. The Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter to a different Controller on the basis of clear violation of principles of natural justice and procedural impropriety.
Psychotropic India Limited vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 29 January, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Psychotropic India Ltd. filed an appeal against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing the trademark “DISOPIL” on the ground that the applied trademark is similar to registered trademark “DESOPILL”. The Court allowed the appeal of the appellant to the extent of remanding the matter back to the Registrar for re-consideration of petitioner’s application The Court held that the impugned order was passed without taking into consideration of the detailed and comprehensive reply of the Appellant to the Examination Report, furthermore, the case also suffers from non-application of mind and there is no consideration of the detailed submissions made by the Appellant.
Alfa Laval Corporate Ab vs Clean Earth Energy Solution India on 6 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court has appointed Professor Sudipto Mukherjee (IIT Delhi) as a Scientific Advisor under section 115(1) of the Patents Act to carry out an investigation to determine whether Defendant No. 1’s heat exchanger plates infringe upon the Plaintiff’s Patent No. 322307. The Advisor must map the technical features of the impugned products against claims of the suit patent and submit a comprehensive report within eight weeks.
Pioneer Pet vs Controller General Of Patents Designs on 4 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Court set aside an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that deemed a design application “abandoned” under Section 5(4) of the Design Act 2000. The First Examination Report (FER) rejected the application because the Power of Attorney (POA) lacked an endorsed application number, despite it being clearly mentioned in the accompanying covering letter. The plaintiff did not reply to the FER within the stipulated time period as per Rule 18(1) of Designs Rules. The Court ruled that the covering letter bearing the design application number complied with the requirement of the FER and thus the respondents were directed to take the POA on record and proceed with the registration process.
Thukral Mechanical Works vs Pm Diesels Private Limited & Anr on 6 February, 2026 (Delhi High Court)
This case is an instance of “Kerly impasse” – a situation where both parties in the case held different rights to the “FIELDMARSHAL” mark for centrifugal pumps. The defendant PMD’s prior use of the mark started from 1975 and generated enough goodwill till 1988 when Jain (who had registered the mark in 1965) assigned the mark to Thukral for use. The impasse is such that PMD, by virtue of their prior use and goodwill, argued the right to injunct the other parties by relying on passing off recognised in section 27(2) of the TM Act, while Jain by virtue of its registration claimed the statutory right to injunct the other infringing party by relying on section 28. The Court decreed permanent injunction against PMD stating that accumulation of goodwill is not a defence in an infringement action.
Other IP Developments
International IP Development
(Thanks to Fazal, Garvit, and Priyam for the case summaries.)