Latest Intellectual Property High Court Cases

Patents — Patent rights — Infringement — Equivalence principle — Applicability of — Independent claims of suit patent cover dyeing agent or pigment whereas products of defendants do not contain dyeing agent or pigment — Defendants contending that absence of dyeing agent or pigment in composition differs substantially from claimed invention and does not fall within scope of suit patent Infringement of suit patent — Determination of — Held, if there is no literal infringement, court has to consider infringement by equivalents — Firstly, court has to look into whether Defendant’s product or variant achieves same result in substantially same way as disclosed in inventive concept of suit patent — Court must focus on problem underlying the invention, inventive core, or inventive concept — To determine underlying problem that existed in prior art and manner in which same is sought to be solved by inventive concept of suit patent, court shall be required to examine complete specification, claims as well as prosecution history of suit patent — Prima facie, infringement by equivalence is not made out in present case — Balance of convenience is favour of Defendants — Irreparable injury and undue hardship would be caused to Defendants if interim injunction granted — Application for grant of interim injunction dismissed [Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. v. Safex Chemicals India Ltd., (2025) 3 HCC (Del) 1]

Trade marks and Passing Off — Broadly — Trade Name/Brand Names — Infringement of trade mark and copyright — Dishonestly adopting registered mark to dilute distinctiveness — Consumer confusion — Held, plaintiff has been able to prove that it is the registered proprietor of trade mark “AQUAGUARD” and other formative marks — Unauthorised use of “AQUA” marks by defendants is deliberate, unjustified and intended solely to capitalise on plaintiff’s established goodwill — Sale of infringing goods likely to cause consumer confusion, dilute distinctiveness of plaintiff’s brand and erode public trust — Such acts pose grave threat to plaintiff’s business interests and hard-earned reputation — Hence, clear case of infringement of trade mark and copyright made out against defendant — Petition disposed [Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Nandan Sales, (2025) 3 HCC (Del) 58]

Copyright — Copyright Act, 1957– Ss. 18, 30, 31, 33, 2(y)(iii) — Registration as a copyright society — Non-registration — Effect of — Application under Or. 39 R. 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking vacation of ex parte ad interim injunction, dismissed — Power to grant licence by PPL in respect of sound recordings assigned to it when PPL is no longer a registered copyright society or member of registered copyright society — Enforceability of in view of proscription contained in S. 33(1) of the 1957 Act — S. 33(3-A), second proviso, introduced by S. 19(ii) of the 2012 Amendment Act, required every copyright society, already registered to get itself registered under Ch. VII within one year from date of commencement of 2012 Amendment Act — Proviso to S. 33(3) provides that ordinarily would not register more than one copyright society in respect of same class of works — Sound recording constitute a distinct class of works under S. 2(y)(iii), there would ordinarily be only one copyright society for sound recordings — S. 33(1), prohibits carrying on of business of issuing or granting licences in respect of: (i) any copyrighted work; or (ii) any other rights conferred by Copyright Act, except under or in accordance with registration granted under S. 33(3) to a copyright society — Therefore, held, first proviso to S. 33(1) proceeds on accepted premise that owner of copyright, who carries on business of issuing or granting licences in respect of copyrighted works, must necessarily be a member of a registered copyright society — Any other reading of proviso would require a strained, unnatural and illogical connotation – Copyright owner desiring to grant licences in respect of his own works, has, firstly, to be a member of a registered copyright society — Court cannot be unmindful of need to balance equities — Order modified — Appeal allowed [Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., (2025) 3 HCC (Del) 116]

Trade Dress — Deceptive similarity/likelihood of confusion — Infringement —Imitation of distinctive colour scheme, colour combination, layout, and typography, container shape and overall design of Plaintiff’s Coat-Pocket Edition of the Constitution of India — If constitutes prima facie infringement of Trade Dress/design — Defendant adopting similar colour scheme, text and font, gilt edging, book posteen colour and embossed gold detailing — Held, distinctive colour combination, when consistently used over time, creates customer recognition and goodwill — Further held, substantial reproduction of such combinations in similar order on packaging can cause confusion and dilute distinctiveness — Defendant copying layout of plaintiff’s product without any independent creativity — To unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, further held, trade dress of defendant’s Coat-Pocket Editions identical to that of plaintiffs’ Coat-Pocket Editions and likely to mislead consumers regarding source or origin of said products — Directions Issued [EBC Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Rupa Publications India (P) Ltd., (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 46]

Trade Dress — Infringement of — Sale of deceptively similar copies — Injunction against — Held, comparison of plaintiffs’ Coat-Pocket Editions of the Constitution of India with defendant’s Coat-Pocket Editions versions, prima facie evident that defendant’s trade dress/design is deceptively similar to trade dress adopted by plaintiffs — Plaintiffs and defendant operating in same line of business, utilising identical trade channels, and catering to same class of customers, hence, held, there exists strong likelihood of confusion — Injunction granted — If interim injunction not granted at this stage, irreparable harm/injury would be caused to plaintiffs — Balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiffs [EBC Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Young Global Publications, (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 56]

Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Ss. 57, 9(1)(a), 9(2)(a), 11(1), 11(2), 11(3)(a), 11(4), 11(10), 12, 18(1), 18(4) and 32 — Registered trade mark — Infringement of — Deceptively similar trade mark — Petitioner alleging that respondent adopted deceptively similar mark “PURPLLE TREE”, merely adding word “TREE” to established “PURPLLE” mark, likely to confuse or deceive consumers and create false impression of affiliation — Respondent, contending that “PURPLLE TREE” registered under different classes and not intended to infringe upon petitioner’s mark — Held, depiction of word “PURPLLE” with two L’s creates an arbitrary formation of a mark — Any adoption of same would amount to dishonest adoption — Respondent added word “TREE” as suffix to mark “PURPLLE” and pictorial representation of a tree — However, despite endeavour to create distinctions, impugned marks of Respondent are confusingly/deceptively similar to earlier and registered trade mark of Petitioner — Existence of entirely, phonetically, structurally and confusingly similar marks on register of the trade marks, is likely to cause confusion and deception amongst trade members and general public amounts to trade mark infringement — Registration of impugned trade marks cancelled – Petition allowed [Manash Lifestyle (P) Ltd. v. Viraj Harjai, (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 164]

Trade Marks Act, 1999, S. 29 — Well known trade mark — Infringement of — Use of deceptively similar mark to well-known registered trade mark, in violation of an undertaking and in disregard of court orders — Whether constitutes infringement under S. 29 of the 1999 Act, contempt of court, and justifies grant of permanent injunction along with compensatory and aggravated damages — Held, defendants acted in wilful disobedience of order passed by court amounting to contempt — Defendants wrongfully gained financial benefits from unauthorised sale of infringing products No affidavit of admission/denial from defendants — Plaintiffs proved ownership of marks in dispute — Further held, compensatory and aggravated damages imposed on defendant — Permanent injunction granted — Application allowed [Minda Spectrum Advisory Ltd. v. Jagdish Kumar, (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 219]