Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Champion Project Enterprises Vs Union of India & Ors — Case Summary High Court of Delhi — Order dated August 22, 2025 Introduction This case study concerns the writ petition filed by Champion Project Enterprises and others versus the Union of India and others before the High Court of Delhi. The petitioners allege unauthorized use and infringement of their original work, the “Student Permanent Account Number” (SPAN) Project, by the Government of India through the APAAR ID Project—Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry. The matter fundamentally revolves around allegations of copyright infringement vis-à-vis a digital academic identity project launched nationally and…

Delhi High Court – Written Statement Timelines Introduction This case study examines a significant judgment from the High Court of Delhi that addresses the rigid timelines for filing written statements in civil suits under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The appeals in question challenge the refusal to condone delays beyond the prescribed 120-day period, highlighting tensions between procedural strictness and equitable considerations in litigation. The decision reinforces the mandatory nature of court rules over general principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and underscores the evolving judicial interpretation of delay condonation in non-commercial suits. By dismissing…

Introduction: This case study delves into a pivotal judgment from the High Court of Delhi that addresses the interplay between procedural timelines for filing written statements and the exclusion of time spent in mediation proceedings. The appeal challenges the refusal to allow a delayed written statement in a partition suit, highlighting the tension between strict adherence to the 120-day limit under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, and the promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation. The Division Bench’s decision underscores the court’s commitment to expeditious justice while accommodating genuine efforts at amicable settlement, particularly in family…

Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Shri Gopal Engineering and Chemical Works Pvt Ltd & Ors Case No: CS(COMM) 85/2018 Date of Order: August 20, 2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6457 Hon’ble Judge: Amit Bansal Introduction This case revolves around a family dispute between two companies originating from the same lineage, involving allegations of trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off in the market for phenyle and related cleaning products. The plaintiff, Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd, accused the defendants, Shri Gopal Engineering and Chemical Works Pvt Ltd and others, of misusing marks like “DOCTOR HAZEL’S BRAND PHENYL” and “CHEMIST BRAND GERM…

Introduction This case involves a dispute over the use of the title “LOOTERE” in the entertainment industry, pitting a film producer against a media company producing a web series. The plaintiff, who produced a 1993 Hindi film titled “LOOTERE,” sought to prevent the defendants from using the same title for their web series, claiming ownership through copyright and registrations with film producers’ associations. The Bombay High Court examined whether copyright subsists in a mere title and if such registrations confer enforceable rights against non-members. The judgment underscores the limitations of intellectual property protection in titles under Indian law, emphasizing statutory…

Introduction: The case of Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. vs Saregama India Limited And 2 Ors., adjudicated by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on August 12, 2025, involves a copyright dispute within the Indian entertainment industry concerning the digital exploitation of musical works. The plaintiff, Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd., sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, Saregama India Limited and others, from unauthorized use of certain sound recordings and underlying works. This interim application, decided within Commercial IP Suit No. 557 of 2022, delves into the complexities of copyright ownership, licensing agreements, and the scope of digital rights, providing a…

Introduction The case of Nakoda Food Marketing Vs Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi on August 7, 2025, involves a significant dispute over the trademark “SALONI” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appellants challenged an order from the Commercial Court, South District, Saket, New Delhi, which upheld an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining them from using the “SALONI” trademark and device. This appeal, filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, addresses issues of trademark infringement, passing off, and the validity…

Case Brief — Dunlop International Limited vs Glorious Investment Limited And Anr. High Court at Calcutta • Order dated 11 June, 2025 • Case Nos. IPDTMA/14/2024 to IPDTMA/21/2024 • Neutral Citation: 2025:CalHC:OS:4567 • Judge: Ravi Krishan Kapur Introduction The case of Dunlop International Limited vs Glorious Investment Limited and Anr., adjudicated by the High Court at Calcutta on June 11, 2025, involves a significant trademark dispute concerning the registration of the word mark “Dunlop” across various classes. The plaintiffs, Dunlop International Limited and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd., challenged decisions by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks that allowed the defendant, Glorious…

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited Vs Sauss Home Products Private Limited Date of Order: 14th August, 2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 539/2023 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6856 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon’ble Judge: Amit Bansal Introduction This judgment addresses a dispute in intellectual property law concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to a bird device mark used in laundry and cleaning products. The plaintiff, Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, sought protection for its ‘Robin’ bird device mark, claiming prior adoption and use since 1899 globally and 1942 in India, against the defendant, Sauss Home Products Private…

Introduction The case of Ceat Limited vs Ramu Kushwha, adjudicated by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, delves into a significant intellectual property dispute involving trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, Ceat Limited, a prominent manufacturer of automotive tyres with a legacy dating back to 1924, sought to protect its well-known trademark “CEAT” and associated artistic works against the defendants, Ramu Kushwha and another, who allegedly used deceptively similar marks such as “CREATA,” “CATE,” and “CAT” for identical goods. This interim application, decided on August 12, 2025, builds upon an earlier ex-parte ad-interim relief granted in…