The Delhi High Court held that commonly used phrases like “One for All, All for One” cannot be granted a trademark unless they have acquired a secondary meaning in the minds of consumers.

In an appeal by Oswaal Books, Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that such expressions are descriptive and part of general language usage, and registering them would unfairly restrict access to common words. 

The court observed that such expressions lack the required originality or secondary meaning necessary for trademark registration.

The Court clarified that simply placing a slogan on goods or advertising does not make it distinctive; it must uniquely identify the source to qualify for trademark protection under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act.

A Geographical Indication (GI) Tag is a legal recognition that a product comes from a specific place and has qualities or a reputation linked to that location. Like Darjeeling Tea, Banarasi Saree, Mysore Sandalwood Oil, Kanchipuram Silk Sarees. 

The Tirupati Laddu has a GI tag, which means it can only be made and sold by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) within the temple premises. No one else is allowed to sell or market it.

Unauthorized use of GI-tagged products violates intellectual property rights under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, and can invite legal action.  It also undermines consumer trust and the authenticity of protected regional products.

Passing off is a common law remedy in intellectual property law used to protect unregistered trademarks, goodwill, and brand reputation from misuse. It occurs when one party misrepresents its goods or services as those of another, causing consumer confusion. 

Though not explicitly defined, passing off is recognised under Section 27(2) and Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 

To succeed in a passing off action, three elements must be proven: such as goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. In Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001), the Supreme Court laid down tests for deceptive similarity.

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has proposed the Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2025, to simplify license fee payments under the Copyright Rules, 2013.

A new Rule 83(A) mandates an exclusive online system for paying license fees for literary works, musical works, and sound recordings communicated to the public. 

No other payment methods will be allowed. This aims to enhance transparency and ease of transactions for copyright holders and users in line with India's digital economy trends. 

Public comments and suggestions are invited by July 5, 2025, and may be sent by post or email to ipr7-dipp@gov.in.

A cease-and-desist notice is a formal legal warning sent to an individual, company, or organization, directing them to immediately stop (cease) and not repeat (desist) an activity that is unlawful or infringes on someone’s legal rights.

It is commonly used in cases involving intellectual property violations, defamation, harassment, or contract breaches.

It acts as a pre-litigation remedy and serves as evidence that the petitioner was given a chance to correct their actions. If the notice is ignored, it may lead to civil or criminal legal proceedings.

Recently, Sony Music issued a cease and desist notice to Myntra for using its songs without permission, which later led to a ₹5 crore copyright infringement lawsuit.

A Delhi District Commercial Court has issued notice to YouTuber Mohak Mangal and Google LLC in a suit alleging copyright and trademark infringement filed by a leading news agency, ANI.

The agency claims Mangal used ten of its news videos and its logo on his YouTube channel without permission, violating rights under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The plaintiff has sought ₹50 lakh in damages and a permanent injunction. The court refused to grant an interim stay and directed the defendants to file replies. The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 26, 2025.

"John Doe" is a legal term used to identify unknown or anonymous individuals in a case, especially when the defendant’s identity is not known at the time of filing.

In India, such orders, also called Ashok Kumar orders, are granted under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to prevent irreparable harm.

In a recent case, the Court issued a John Doe and dynamic+ injunction against rogue platforms like Yoghurt TV and Nova IPTV for illegally streaming Premier League matches. Citing violations under the Copyright Act, 1957, over 30 infringing domains were ordered to be blocked.

Trade dress, protected under Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, refers to the overall visual appearance of a product that signifies its source.

It helps prevent consumer confusion by ensuring that the design, shape, or packaging is uniquely associated with a specific brand.

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court restrained a company from selling trolleys deceptively similar to those of Mokobara, finding it an infringement of Mokobara’s distinctive trade dress.

The Court reaffirmed that trade dress extends beyond names and logos, covering aesthetic features that serve as brand identifiers.

The Delhi High Court granted partial relief to Indiamart in a trademark infringement suit filed by Puma.

Puma alleged that Indiamart listed counterfeit Puma products and sought to restrain Indiamart from using “PUMA” as a selectable brand option.

The Court allowed Indiamart to continue listing “PUMA” as a selectable brand option in its dropdown menu for prospective sellers, but directed it to promptly remove counterfeit Puma listings upon notice.

The bench found no prima facie evidence that Indiamart promoted counterfeit goods.

However, it warned that failure to act on takedown requests could strip Indiamart of safe harbour protections under Section 79 of the IT Act. 

The Delhi High Court has issued a restraining order against the defendants for creating and selling trolleys that were deceptively or confusingly similar to Mokobara's products. 

The Court ruled that Mokobara's unique trade dress and registered trademark were violated by the defendants, who were also presenting the imitation luggage on their website and social media, which is labeled as "Green land". 

The Court also noted that the products were indistinguishable from Mokobara's products, apart from their sale through the website and social media. The next hearing is scheduled for October 10.

The Delhi High Court has declared ‘RITZ’ and ‘RITZ-CARLTON’ as well-known trademarks under Indian law, granting a permanent injunction against an Indian hotel operator for unauthorized use.

The suit was filed by The Ritz Hotel (Paris) and The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company after discovering the use of similar names and domains like www.ritz-hotels.com and www.thehotelritz.com without permission. Despite earlier assurances to stop, the misuse continued.

Justice Amit Bansal held that the brands enjoy global recognition, long-standing use, and strong goodwill.

The court ordered immediate discontinuation of the infringing domains and upheld the plaintiffs’ rights under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act.

Indian courts are adopting advanced legal tools to tackle rising tech-driven piracy.

One such tool is the Dynamic Injunction, which blocks not just the original pirated website, but also any mirror sites that pop up later, without needing a new court order each time.

Then comes the Dynamic+ Injunction, which goes further by protecting unreleased content, helping prevent leaks the moment a film or show is released.

The Superlative Injunction empowers rights holders to request real-time blocking of illegal websites and apps by directly notifying internet providers.

These evolving measures reflect the judiciary’s proactive approach to digital piracy and its efforts to safeguard intellectual property in a fast-changing tech landscape.

The Delhi High Court has granted a "superlative injunction" to Star India, empowering it to block rogue mobile apps in real time, in addition to infringing websites. 

This goes beyond the usual dynamic injunctions and aims to curb unauthorized streaming of its content, such as IPL matches. 

Justice Saurabh Banerjee emphasized that in the digital age, delays in legal action can render remedies ineffective.  The court directed domain registrars and internet service providers to suspend access to infringing domains and apps upon notification by Star India.  

This injunction remains effective until July 3, 2025.

The Delhi High Court has issued a "dynamic+ injunction” to block websites and social media accounts using AI to create fake content using Sadhguru’s name, voice, or image.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed X and YouTube to remove such accounts and share user information. The Court was shown fake arrest news, AI-generated interviews promoting scams, and deepfake videos endorsing unrelated products using AI tools. 

The Court found a strong prima facie case and ordered strict action, directing DoT and MEITY to ensure compliance and summoned 41 rogue websites to respond by October 14.

The court found this misuse violated Sadhguru’s personality rights and misled the public.