Important Decisions of the Year 2025 on IPR Law

Important Decisions of the Year 2025 on IPR Law

Written by Vishal

Advertisement of the application by the Registrar of Trademarks is not a purely ministerial act. The Registrar is required to apply his mind as to whether any rival marks are in existence and to issue an appropriate FER in a case where such rival marks exist before advertising the application. The decision to advertise the application is a decision against which a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable.

[Ashiana Ispat Ltd v. Kamdhenu Ltd [2025] GCtR 1873 (Delhi)]

Squatting on a trade mark, after getting it registered, without using it, is, no doubt, unwholesome and to be deprecated. The sequelae must, however, be those which the statutory envisages. It would be open to any party, including one who desires to use an identical mark, to apply to the Registrar of Trade Marks for invalidation of the mark on the ground of non-user, under Section 47 of Trade Marks Act, 1999.

[Oxygun Health Pvt. Ltd v. Pneumo Care Health Pvt Ltd [2025] GCtR 1874 (Delhi)]

While interpreting the term “use” as employed for the alleged infringer in Section 29(1) to (5) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 one has to seek recourse to Section 2(2)(b) and (c). Section 2(2)(b) clarifies that any reference, in the Trade Marks Act, to the “use” of a mark is to be construed as a reference to the use of the mark in printed or visual form. Section 33(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act disentitles the proprietor of a registered trade mark from opposing the use of a later registered trade mark by another, if he has acquiesced “for a continuous period of five years” to the use of the latter trade mark.

[Modi-Mundipharma Pvt Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt Ltd [2025] GCtR 1876 (Delhi)]

Passing off is a sui generis common law remedy, aimed at protecting one’s hard-earned goodwill and reputation from others who may deceitfully seek to capitalize on it. It resides pristinely in its own universe, and is one of the very few non-statutory remedies, available in law, which is accorded statutory recognition in Section 27(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Indeed, there are very few other such common law remedy which is granted statutory protection in our country. 

[Crocs Inc USA v. Bata India [2025] GCtR 1877 (Delhi)]

The principle of international exhaustion is duly recognized under Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Any person in India has the right to legally import goods from abroad bearing the trademarks of an entity and sell the same in India. Such sale of original goods by an authorized reseller/importer would not amount to trademark infringement. 

[ Products and Ideas (India) Pvt Ltd v. Nilkamal Limited [2025] GCtR 1878 (Delhi) ] 

The existence of goodwill and reputation has to be shown to exist in India and worldwide or global goodwill and reputation, sans any evidence of territorial goodwill and reputation, will be insufficient to succeed in a claim of passing off and thus yardstick to judge the claim of passing off will be “prior user” in India”. Of course, mere priority of user in India may not be sufficient to sustain a claim of passing off unless the plaintiff ascertaining the claim is able to establish that such prior user has resulted in accumulation of goodwill and reputation in the mark that it seeks to assert.

[ VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes [2025] GCtR 1879 (Delhi) ]

A combined reading of S.2(1) (m) and S.2(1)(zb) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 would show that even a name, which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others, qualifies to be considered as a trademark. The "use of a mark" in relation to goods is the use of the same upon, or in any physical or in any other relation whatsoever, to such goods. It is, therefore, not necessary that the mark must only be used in a physical form in relation to such goods, but may be used in any other relation whatsoever to such goods. 

[ KRB Enterprises v. M/s KRBL Ltd [2025] GCtR 1880 (Delhi) ]

It is a settled principle of law that though the trademark should ideally be considered as a whole, there can be a predominant mark of the same which would attract the attention of the customer and have a recall value. The said predominant part of the trademark would, therefore, be entitled to an equivalent protection from misuse and violation.

[ Newgen IT Technologies Ltd v. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd [2025] GCtR 1881 (Delhi) ]

In this case it was seen that there is no dispute that the appellant is using its Subject Mark for goods like sanitary napkins, sanitary towels, pads etc., while the respondents are using their Impugned Mark for medicine claimed to be giving relief against constipation. The two goods are neither allied nor cognate. So it was held that the nature of goods, their trade channel, their purpose, and the intended consumers are distinct, and there is no likelihood of confusion being caused by the use of the marks for such goods.

[ RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd v Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd [2025] GCtR 1882 (Delhi) ]

Under Section 2(2) (b) of the Trademark Act, 1999, use of a mark shall be construed as a reference to the use of printed or other visual representation of the mark. Further Section 2(2)(c) appliesthis in relation to goods and services. Dealing with a case involving Indian Express it was held that the wide and expansive understanding of use of a mark as defined by the statute in prima facie view would include usage by the Defendant for promotion and advertising, which stands restricted to the five southern states and UTs by the IPAB Order. It was also held that there cannot be an acquiescence or waiver of rights accrued under a consent decree.

[ Indian Express (P) Ltd v. Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd [2025] GCtR 1883 (Bombay) ]

Any invention having been published in India or elsewhere, before the priority date of the claim, can be considered for the purposes of assessing obviousness. Merely because US'568, as relied by the defendant, is "abandoned" does not preclude its use as prior art against the suit patent, as prior art is to be pivoted on the "publication" of the same either in "India or elsewhere". Thus, any document, including, an abandoned patent application that is published and publicly available, qualifies as relevant prior art for the purposes of Section 64(1)(f) of the Patents Act, 1970 regardless of whether it proceeds to grant or is ultimately abandoned.

[ Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd v. Classic Display Systems Pvt Ltd [2025] GCtR 1884 (Delhi) ]

Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 separates the expressions “results in a new product” and “employees at least one new reactant”, with the conjunction “or”. In other words, even if it were to be assumed that a later process, which is sought to be patented, is a mere use of an earlier known process, it would nonetheless be patentable if it either results in a new product or employees at least one new reactant. Satisfaction of one, or the other, requirement. Either would suffice. 

[ Tapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [2025] GCtR 1885 (Delhi) ]

The Dynamic+ injunction would apply under the following circumstances: (i) Wherever the brand/trademark appears as it is in the domain name; (ii) Wherever brand/trademark appears with a prefix or suffix which could lead to confusion; (iii) Wherever the brand/trademark appears as an alphanumeric variation. It was also held that any misuse of domain names by registration of fraudulent domain names and creation of fake websites results in erosion of the integrity and goodwill of the business house and name, as also leads to consumer deception.

[ Colgate Palmolive Company v. NIXI [2025] GCtR 1889 (Delhi) ]

 

Note : AI has not been used at any stage of research/writing for this article. No other material except full text decision has been referred for writing the article. 

If you need full text (PDF) copies of decisions mentioned in this post, please write your email address in the "Comment" section of blog post. Copies will be shared free of cost.