- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Environment, Criminal Law, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
Introduction
We are pleased to share the latest edition of our newsletter, which includes some important developments from the ever-evolving field of Intellectual Property (IP). This quarter has seen notable decisions across trademarks, copyrights, patents, designs, and geographical indications. Courts in India and abroad are beginning to address conflicts that lie at the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence. The Delhi High Court is considering whether scraping data to train large language models amounts to copyright infringement in ANI v. OpenAI, while the Mexican Supreme Court has held that works generated solely through AI are not eligible for copyright protection. Meanwhile, a proposed settlement is underway in the class action suit filed by several authors against Anthropic, alleging copyright infringement. In the realm of trade mark law, Indian courts have actively curbed fraudulent use of marks to deceive consumers. Both Tata and Zepto have obtained interim injunctions restraining the operation of infringing domain names and scams misusing their brands. Courts have also noted a legislative lacuna in patent law due to the absence of a definition of 'infringement' under the Patents Act, 1970, and have clarified the scope of pro-tem deposit orders. Other key updates include new geographical indication registrations for several products from Meghalaya, Australia's proposal to permit AI training on copyrighted material, and the Bombay High Court reaffirming that functionality does not preclude design registration where aesthetic appeal exists. On that note, we hand this edition over to you, packed with developments worth the read. Happy reading!
Trade Mark it up!
The Bombay High Court: Determinative factor for Jurisdiction is the place of purchase
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay ("Bombay High Court"), on August 11, 2025, has clarified that for Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 19991 ("Trade Marks Act"), territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place of purchase of goods, and not the residence of the customer.2 M/s Arcee Electronics ("Arcee") filed a suit for trade mark infringement and passing off against M/s Arceeika ("Arceeika") in relation to their use of the mark "ARCEEIKA". Arcee alleged that Arceeika had infringed its registered trade mark "ARCEE" by adopting a deceptively similar mark. It was further contended that Arceeika had copied the font, colour scheme, and business model of Arcee, thereby attempting to pass off their goods as those of Arcee. To establish jurisdiction, Arcee relied on invoices evidencing delivery of its goods to customers located in Mumbai. Arceeika challenged jurisdiction by filing an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.3 They argued that all of Arcee's showrooms and its head office were situated in Navi Mumbai and Raigad District. They alleged that Arcee had no official business in the city of Mumbai. The Bombay High Court saw merit in these arguments and accepted Arceeika's contention. It further held that Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act granted jurisdiction to the court where Arcee resides or carries on business. Since all showrooms and offices of Arcee were not in Mumbai, jurisdiction to this court could not be conferred merely on the basis of delivery to a customer in Mumbai. Along with Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19084 also iterates the same values. Hence, the Bombay High Court observed that the determinative factor was the place where the purchase was made. Hence, the suit was disposed of.
'NUTELLA' now a well-known trade mark
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ("Delhi High
Court") declared the mark "NUTELLA"/ 
as a well-known trade mark under Section
2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act5 in a suit filed by Ferrero
Group ("Ferrero") against counterfeit
use of its product.6 Ferrero, the proprietor of the mark
"NUTELLA", instituted proceedings against a local
manufacturer engaged in the sale of hazelnut cocoa spread under the
impugned mark "NUTELLA FERRERO". It was alleged that the
defendant was counterfeiting Ferrero's goods in unhygienic
conditions, copying its packaging, labels, and trade dress, thereby
infringing Ferrero's statutory rights and causing deception
amongst consumers. Ferrero also sought a declaration that
"NUTELLA" be recognised as a well-known trade mark.
The defendant failed to appear in the matter, leading to ex-parte proceedings. In analysing Ferrero's claim, the Delhi High Court emphasised that food products require a higher standard of protection, given the serious public health implications arising from counterfeits. It found that the defendant's adoption was dishonest, intended to ride on the global goodwill of Ferrero's brand, and likely to mislead ordinary consumers into believing that the counterfeit products emanated from Ferrero. Relying on Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act,7 the Delhi High Court took into account the extensive use, reputation, and recognition of the mark "NUTELLA" worldwide, including registrations across multiple jurisdictions and recognition by the World Intellectual Property Organization. On this basis, it declared "NUTELLA" a well-known trade mark in India. In addition, the Delhi High Court granted Ferrero a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from use of the impugned mark, awarded damages of INR 30,00,000, (thirty lakh) and imposed costs of INR 2,00,000 (two lakh).
Delhi High Court grants injunction to TATA in Trade Mark infringement suit
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Tata Sons and a subsidiary of Tata Digital Private Limited (collectively, "Tata Companies"), restraining anonymous infringers and their affiliates (collectively, "Anonymous Infringers") from using the marks "TATA" and "TATA PAYMENTS" ("TATA Marks") or any deceptively similar variations across any medium.8 The order came in a trade mark infringement suit filed by the Tata Companies after discovering a deceptive website misusing its trade marks.
The Tata Companies are the proprietors of more than 1,000 (one thousand) registered trademarks and over 2,000 (two thousand) domains, including "tata.com" and "tatapayments.com." Tata Companies came across the website, "tatapayment.net" and Telegram accounts which promoted digital payment services under Tata Marks. The registrant's details were concealed, but the site listed contact numbers, email addresses, and Telegram accounts. The Tata Companies argued that the use of its TATA Marks would cause substantial confusion to the public as they would be misled into believing the Anonymous Infringers were associated with them. They also argued that the Anonymous Infringers were attempting to deceive and defraud and individuals and businesses by offering digital payment services under its TATA Marks.
The Delhi High Court held that the Tata Companies had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in their favour. It also found that irreparable harm would result to the Tata Companies without interim protection. It, therefore, restrained the Anonymous Infringers from using the TATA Marks in any manner. The domain name registrar was directed to block the site, suspend infringing domains, and disclose registrant information. Telegram was ordered to block the infringing accounts and share user details. The matter is next listed for November 24, 2025.
Delhi High Court Grants Injunction to Zepto against fake job and franchise Scams
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Zepto Private Limited and its wholly-owned subsidiary (collectively, "Zepto"), restraining owners of infringing domain names and unknown entities ("Unauthorised Actors") from operating domain names, websites, mobile applications, and social media accounts by misusing the trade mark "ZEPTO".9
Zepto, a quick-commerce platform engaged in the business of delivering groceries and other products, is the sole proprietor of the "ZEPTO" trade mark and operates the official Zepto website through registered domains "zeptonow.com" and "zepto.com". It also operates mobile applications to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers. Zepto alleged that the Unauthorised Actors were running a widespread scam, misusing its trade mark and goodwill to deceive the public into paying fees for fake franchise applications and job opportunities.
The Unauthorised Actors were operating websites "zeptojob.com" and "zeptojobs.in" and falsely presenting themselves as official platforms for recruiting delivery partners. Zepto also argued that several social media pages and groups on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn were pretending to be Zepto managers and were seeking payments.
To view the full article please click here.
Footnotes
1. Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 134(2), No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999, (India).
2. Thiya Distribution and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. ARCEEIKA and Ors., 2025: BHC-OS:13596.
3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VIII Rule 10, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908, (India).
4. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 20, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908, (India).
5. Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 2(zg), No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999, (India).
6. Ferrero Spa v. M.B. Enterprises, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5105.
7. Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 11, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999, (India).
8. Tata Sons (P) Ltd. v. John Doe, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5733.
9. Zepto Pvt. Ltd. v. Owner of Domain Name Zeptonowindia.com, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5767.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
