🔴 Lead Story
One Letter. One Court. One Clear Answer on Phonetic Similarity.
Lazza v. Hazza · Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court this week granted injunction protecting the trademark Lazza against use of the mark Hazza. The two marks differ by a single initial consonant. That difference, the court held, was insufficient to displace the likelihood of consumer confusion arising from phonetic and visual similarity between them.
The decision is a precise application of the deceptive similarity standard under Section 2(1)(h) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. The test applied by the court is whether a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, encountering the marks at different times and in different places, would be likely to be confused as to their trade origin. On that test, Hazza failed.
The significance of this decision extends beyond the parties. It confirms that the phonetic similarity analysis in India does not require marks to be identical or near-identical. Where the sound, structure and overall impression of two marks are sufficiently proximate to create confusion in the marketplace, the later mark will not be permitted to remain. A single letter of difference provides no safe harbour.
📡 Radar India
Nippon Paint Restrained From Using INFINITY Mar
Nippon Paint v. Glossy Paints · Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction restraining Nippon Paint from using the mark Infinity for glossy paints. The court found prima facie similarity between the impugned mark and the plaintiff’s prior rights in Infinity and held that the likelihood of consumer confusion warranted immediate restraint pending trial.
Interim Relief Refused in MY WATER BOX Dispute
More Than Water v. NESCO · Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court refused ad-interim injunction to More Than Water in its dispute with NESCO over the mark My Water Box. The court found no sufficient urgency to warrant immediate restraint, leaving the question of competing rights in the mark to be contested at trial on the merits.
Interim Injunction Granted for BHARATBENZ Trademark
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles v. 𝘎𝘦𝘵𝘮𝘰𝘩𝘪𝘵 𝘊𝘢𝘣 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘓𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 & 𝘖𝘳𝘴 · Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction to Daimler India Commercial Vehicles restraining third parties from using the mark BharatBenz on buses. The court found prima facie infringement of the well-known mark BharatBenz and held that unauthorised use by third parties in the same product category warranted immediate restraint.
Interim Relief Granted in KAMDHENU Trademark Dispute
Kamdhenu Limited v. Ashiana Ispat Limited · Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Kamdhenu Limited restraining Ashiana Ispat Limited from using the mark AL KAMDHENU GOLD. The court found deceptive similarity with the registered mark Kamdhenu and restrained use of the impugned mark pending trial.
Interim Relief Refused in SETMAX Dispute
Laser Shaving v. 𝘙𝘒𝘔 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘗𝘷𝘵 𝘓𝘵𝘥 & 𝘖𝘳𝘴 · Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court upheld refusal of interim injunction to Laser Shaving in its dispute involving the mark Setmax. The court found insufficient grounds for immediate restraint and directed that questions of similarity and passing off be determined at trial.
Unauthorised Broadcast of Jana Nayagan Restrained
Jana Nayagan Rights Holder v. John Doe · Madras High Court
The Madras High Court temporarily restrained unauthorised broadcasting of the film Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay. The court found prima facie piracy and illegal dissemination of the film and issued directions to curb copyright infringement, emphasising the need for immediate digital enforcement to prevent ongoing harm to the rights holder.
Undertaking Recorded in OYE OYE Copyright Row
Trimurti Films v B62 Studios · Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court recorded an undertaking by Trimurti Films to refrain from making media statements in the ongoing dispute concerning competing rights in the work Oye Oye. The court directed that the integrity of proceedings be preserved pending adjudication of the substantive copyright claims.
Intermediary Directed to Block Premier League Infringing URLs
Premier League v. Tucows · Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court directed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to take action against Tucows for failing to block infringing URLs in proceedings concerning unauthorised streaming of Premier League broadcasts. The order strengthens the enforcement obligations imposed on intermediaries in copyright infringement matters involving live sports content.
CBFC Certificate Not Conclusive Proof of Authorship
R. Kishore Kumar v. M/s R.R. Cine Productions & Film · Madras High Court
The Madras High Court held that a Central Board of Film Certification certificate constitutes only prima facie evidence of film production and does not amount to conclusive proof of copyright authorship. The decision arose in the context of competing ownership claims over a film and clarifies the evidentiary weight of certification in copyright disputes.
Bombay High Court Protects Kartik Aaryan’s Personality Rights
Kartik Aaryan v. Vinsm Global (P) Ltd · Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court granted interim protection to actor Kartik Aaryan, restraining unauthorised commercial exploitation of his name, image and persona across platforms. The court directed removal of infringing content and applied the developing body of publicity rights jurisprudence in Indian courts. The order confirms that prima facie unauthorised commercial exploitation of a public figure’s identity attributes is sufficient to secure immediate judicial protection, with the burden shifting to the defendant to justify the use.
🌍 Radar Global
Teva Must Face Mylan Claims Over Copaxone Competition
Mylan v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries · US District Court (New Jersey)
A United States court held that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries must face claims by Mylan alleging anticompetitive conduct relating to the drug Copaxone. The case concerns delayed generic market entry and patent-linked strategies used to extend market exclusivity beyond the period of patent protection.
Federal Circuit Revives VLSI v. Intel Semiconductor Patent Dispute
VLSI v. Intel · US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived aspects of the three billion dollar patent dispute between VLSI and Intel concerning semiconductor patents and damages. The decision continues a long-running high-stakes litigation over chip technologies and patent valuation methodology.
Federal Circuit Revives Teva v. Eli Lilly Migraine Drug Case
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v. Eli Lilly · US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived Teva Pharmaceutical Industries’ lawsuit against Eli Lilly concerning migraine drug patents. The ruling reopens questions of patent validity and the terms on which generic competitors may enter the market.
HeartFlow Sues Cleerly Over AI Cardiology Technology
HeartFlow v. Cleerly · US Federal Court (Texas)
HeartFlow commenced proceedings against Cleerly alleging infringement and misuse of proprietary AI-driven cardiology technology used for analysing coronary conditions. The dispute raises questions of IP ownership and protection in AI-enabled diagnostic tools, an area of increasing litigation as medical AI applications proliferate across healthcare markets.
Authors Seek Compensation in Anthropic Copyright Settlement
Authors v. Anthropic · United States
Nearly 120,000 authors have sought compensation from a $1.5 billion class-action settlement involving Anthropic over alleged unauthorised use of over 480,000 books in AI training and large language model datasets. The dispute concerns the scope of copyright liability in AI training.
📡 Radar Blip
CGPDTM Extends Filing Deadlines Due to System Downtime
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks extended deadlines for filings relating to Designs and Geographical Indications following system maintenance outages. Affected timelines stand extended to 22 and 23 April 2026. Stakeholders experiencing payment failures are directed to report to the Design Helpdesk with supporting evidence.
Copyright Office Launches Hearing Drive Under NIPEKM
The Copyright Office India initiated a hearing drive under the National Intellectual Property Pendency Elimination Mission to address backlog in copyright registrations. Hearings scheduled between 27 April and 8 May 2026 will be conducted in hybrid mode to expedite disposal of pending registration matters and improve procedural efficiency.
WIPO Adds Peru Trademark Data to Global Brand Database
The World Intellectual Property Organization expanded its Global Brand Database to include Peru’s national trademark collection, adding approximately 950,000 records and bringing the total number of data sources to 89. The addition strengthens global trademark search, clearance and enforcement capabilities across jurisdictions.
Korea and Indonesia Sign IP Enforcement Cooperation Agreement
The Ministry of Intellectual Property of Korea signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Indonesia’s Ministry of Law to enhance cooperation on IP protection and enforcement. The agreement targets counterfeit goods, bad-faith trademark filings and cross-border enforcement, establishing joint enforcement mechanisms and information-sharing systems under the RCEP framework.
WIPO China Forum Positions IP as Driver of Digital and AI Economy
The World Intellectual Property Organization’s China office convened a forum positioning IP as a core driver of innovation in the digital and intelligent economy. Discussions addressed AI governance, green technology, technological self-reliance and the role of IP as both a protection mechanism and a policy instrument shaping innovation ecosystems.
USPTO and DOJ Signal Support for Stronger Patent Injunction Standards
The United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Department of Justice issued a joint statement supporting broader availability of injunctive relief in patent cases. The position signals a policy shift toward stronger patent enforcement, countering judicial trends that have made injunctions more difficult to obtain in patent matters following the eBay decision.
