Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Brief Introductory Note This case involves a dispute over copyright protection for artistic labels used in the edible oil business. Rajani Products, a partnership firm, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to cancel a copyright registration held by Madhukar Varandani, who runs Naturalindia Oils and Proteins. The main issue was whether Varandani’s label, which included a Swastik device, copied Rajani Products’ earlier labels too closely, making it unoriginal and unworthy of copyright protection. The court examined if the challenged label was a substantial imitation of the original works, leading to its removal from the copyright register. This decision…

Brief Introductory Note Brief Introductory Note: The Delhi High Court recently dealt with a dispute where a company (the plaintiff) sued several defendants for spreading false news, making threatening WhatsApp messages and using the plaintiff’s trademark in a way that allegedly harmed its reputation. The plaintiff had already filed an earlier suit (the “First Suit”) concerning the same trademark issue and a police raid. In the present case the plaintiff asked the court to stop the defendants from further disparagement and to remove the online material. The court had to decide whether this new suit was permissible under the law…

Delhi High Court examines copyright, government work status, and moral rights in a DPR consultancy dispute between Envitech and Rudrabhishek Enterprises. Brief Introductory Note Brief Introductory Note: This case, “Envitech Consultants India Pvt Ltd vs Rudrabhishek Enterprises Limited & Ors.”, decided by the Delhi High Court, centers on a dispute involving allegations of copyright infringement linked to consultancy works, more specifically Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) for water supply schemes in Uttar Pradesh. The core legal question is whether the Plaintiff, a consultancy firm, retains copyright and authorship over those DPRs or if, as claimed by the Defendants, the works constitute…

Brief Introduction This case arises out of an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, challenging the refusal of registration of the “SoEasy” trademark. Ashim Kumar Ghosh vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks dealt with the refusal of registration for the trademark “SoEasy” in respect of instructional and teaching materials (Class 16) after it had initially been accepted and advertised. The case examines the powers of the Registrar under Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to withdraw acceptance of a trademark application and considers whether “SoEasy” is distinctive or only descriptive and generic, impacting its eligibility…

Brief Introductory Head Note Summary: This case involves a legal battle over a patent application for a special kind of medicine delivery system designed to release drugs slowly into the body over time. The companies involved, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, both from the United States, wanted to protect their invention in India. Their invention is a ready-to-use injection that contains tiny spheres (called microspheres) suspended in an oil-based liquid. These spheres hold a drug called exenatide, which helps treat diabetes, along with a bit of sugar to keep it stable. The idea is to make the drug last…

Introductory Note This case involves a person named Sudeep Gupta who challenged a decision by the government office that handles trademarks in India. The office had rejected his trademark application for a mark called “STORE MY GOODS” along with a logo, which he used for services related to storing and handling goods, like in warehouses or logistics. Sudeep Gupta claimed he had been using this mark honestly since July 19, 2020, and even had a registration certificate dated June 15, 2024, that supported his use from that date. He provided proof like affidavits, invoices, and awards he received for his…

Introductory Note This case involves a dispute over a patent for a special coating used in steel production to prevent slag from sticking to pots. The company Hi Tech Chemicals Limited challenged a decision by the patent office that upheld the patent granted to another company, Allied Metallurgical Products Private Limited. The challenge was about whether the patent office properly considered all arguments against the patent, such as whether the invention was truly new and inventive. The High Court in Madras looked into this and decided to send the matter back to the patent office for a fresh look, pointing…

Introductory Note Introductory Note: This case concerns the global confectionery brand Ferrero Spa, the manufacturer and trademark owner of the iconic hazelnut cocoa spread sold under the well-known brand NUTELLA, and its legal action against entities engaged in manufacturing and distributing empty glass jars deceptively similar to the original Nutella jars. The dispute arose when Ferrero discovered that the defendants were selling look-alike Nutella jars, thereby facilitating counterfeiting and causing damage to the brand’s trademark, goodwill, and market reputation. The Delhi High Court examined not only the aspect of trademark infringement but also whether the circumstances warranted awarding damages and…

Introductory Note This is the latest chapter in the long-running legal battle between the Madras Bar Association and the Government of India over how tribunals should be set up and run in our country. Tribunals are special courts created by laws to decide specific kinds of disputes quickly – like tax cases, company matters, labour disputes, consumer complaints, intellectual property issues, and many others – so that regular courts are not overloaded. Over the last forty years the Supreme Court has repeatedly told the government that these tribunals must be truly independent, free from government control in appointments, salary, tenure,…

Brief Introductory Head Note The case MTS Papers India Limited v. Spento Papers India LLP, FAO (COMM) 214/2025, decided on 17 November 2025 by the High Court of Delhi, dealt with the question whether a civil commercial court in Delhi could entertain a recovery suit when the plaint did not disclose any facts demonstrating territorial jurisdiction. The High Court examined whether a plaint that is silent on jurisdictional facts can be cured through pleadings like replication or by amendment, especially when an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is pending. Subsequent to filing of application of application under Order…