Dr. Reddy’s Challenges Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic Patent in India, Paving Way for Cheaper Weight Loss Drugs

by

Indian pharmaceutical major Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories has mounted a significant legal challenge against Novo Nordisk’s patent for semaglutide, the key ingredient in its blockbuster weight-loss and diabetes drug Ozempic, potentially opening the door for affordable generics in India and other emerging markets.

Filed in the Delhi High Court, the challenge targets Novo’s secondary patent on semaglutide (filed in 2007 and expiring in 2026), which Dr. Reddy’s argues lacks inventive merit and violates Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act — a clause designed to prevent “evergreening” or unjustified patent extensions.

Patent Dispute and Court Proceedings

Novo Nordisk, the Danish pharmaceutical giant, responded with legal action of its own, securing an interim injunction from the Delhi High Court against Dr. Reddy’s and its partner OneSource. The court has temporarily restrained the companies from selling semaglutide-based formulations in India. However, it has allowed them to manufacture and export the drug while the case is pending.

The next hearing is scheduled for August 19, 2025.

Semaglutide: The New Blockbuster Molecule

Semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, is used under brand names like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity. The drug has surged in popularity due to its effectiveness in weight management, contributing to a global market exceeding $29 billion annually.

With India projected to have over 450 million overweight or obese individuals by 2050, the demand for such therapeutics is expected to skyrocket.

Currently, a monthly course of semaglutide via Rybelsus (oral tablets) costs around ₹10,000, while injectable alternatives such as Mounjaro (from Eli Lilly) are priced at approximately ₹17,500. If generics are approved post-patent expiry, prices could drop by 60–70%, making treatment accessible to a broader population.

Indian Pharma Eyes Generics Boom

Besides Dr. Reddy’s, companies like Cipla, Sun Pharma, Biocon, and Lupin are believed to be preparing for post-2026 launches of generic semaglutide. Some have reportedly begun exporting to countries where Novo’s patent has already expired or been challenged successfully, such as Canada, Russia, and certain Latin American markets.

This development mirrors a global trend where generic manufacturers are seizing opportunities to introduce affordable alternatives amid the soaring demand for anti-obesity medications.

Legal and Market Implications

Dr. Reddy’s legal move could set a powerful precedent. If successful, it would significantly reduce time-to-market for semaglutide generics in India, giving Indian pharmaceutical firms a competitive edge globally and delivering cost-effective options domestically.

The case also underscores the growing tension between intellectual property rights and public health interests, particularly in the post-pandemic pharmaceutical landscape where access to essential medications is a national and humanitarian priority.

What’s Next?

August 19, 2025: Delhi High Court hearing on Novo Nordisk’s injunction.

March 2026: Scheduled expiry of Novo Nordisk’s secondary semaglutide patent.

Post-2026: Potential for a flood of semaglutide generics if the patent is invalidated or expires without further extension.

This article is based on publicly available information and legal filings as of June 21, 2025. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical or legal advice. Readers are advised to consult healthcare professionals or legal experts for specific concerns. All trademarks, brand names, and company names are the property of their respective owners.

Kerala Court Orders ₹1 Crore Damages Against Milnna for Trademark Infringement of Milma

by

In a landmark judgment, a Kerala court has slapped a hefty ₹1 crore fine on private dairy company Milnna for illegally imitating the brand identity of the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation, popularly known as Milma. The ruling marks a significant victory for the state-run dairy cooperative, reinforcing the importance of trademark protection and consumer trust.

Case Background

The dispute arose when Milma filed a civil suit against Milnna, alleging that the latter had copied Milma’s trademark, including the brand name, packaging style, colour schemes, font, and the distinctive image of a cow. Milma argued that Milnna’s imitation created a likelihood of confusion among consumers, thereby infringing on its intellectual property rights and diluting its brand value.

Milma, established in 1980 and registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, has cultivated decades of goodwill and market reputation. The court observed that Milma’s brand name, coined in 1983, had attained a high level of consumer recognition across Kerala and beyond.

Court Observations and Verdict

The court held that Milnna’s branding was “deceptively similar” to that of Milma. The judge noted that the visual and phonetic resemblance between the two brands was significant enough to mislead ordinary consumers into believing both products originated from the same source.

The key directives in the court’s verdict included:

Compensatory damages of ₹1 crore to be paid by Milnna for infringing upon Milma’s trademark and damaging its goodwill.

Interest at 6% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the verdict until the payment is completed.

An additional ₹8,18,410 awarded to Milma as reimbursement for legal expenses incurred during the proceedings.

A perpetual injunction restraining Milnna and its associates from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any dairy products that use trademarks, trade dress, or packaging similar to that of Milma.

Milma’s Response

Reacting to the judgment, Milma Chairman K. S. Mani described the ruling as a “strong message to counterfeiters and imitators” and reaffirmed the organisation’s commitment to safeguarding its brand identity and consumer trust.

“This verdict reaffirms the judiciary’s role in protecting the rights of cooperative societies like Milma that work for the welfare of dairy farmers,” said Mani.

Legal Significance

This case sets a vital precedent for enforcing trademark laws in India, especially for cooperative and public sector entities. It highlights the judiciary’s resolve to prevent unfair business practices and protect consumers from deceptive branding.

The judgment also reinforces the fourfold test of trademark infringement, including:

Similarity of marks (visually and phonetically),

Nature of products/services,

Customer base and trade channels,

Evidence of actual confusion.

In all aspects, Milnna was found to have wrongfully benefited from the well-established identity of Milma.

Disclaimer

It is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For accurate legal interpretation, please consult a qualified trademark attorney or refer to the original court documents.

Delhi High Court Upholds IndiaMART’s Safe Harbour Protection in Trademark Case with PUMA

by

New Delhi, June 20, 2025:
In a significant development for e-commerce and intermediary platforms, the Delhi High Court has upheld the safe harbour protection granted to IndiaMART in a trademark infringement case filed by global sportswear brand PUMA SE. The Court ruled that IndiaMART’s inclusion of “PUMA” in its search dropdown does not amount to trademark use or infringement, as it acts merely as a neutral intermediary facilitating buyer-seller interactions.

Background: PUMA’s Allegations Against IndiaMART

PUMA SE had approached the court alleging that IndiaMART enabled the sale of counterfeit products on its platform. A major point of contention was IndiaMART’s autocomplete feature in the search bar, which suggested the term “PUMA” and led to product listings that allegedly included fake items bearing PUMA’s registered trademark. Initially, a single judge bench of the High Court granted an interim injunction directing IndiaMART to block the use of the word “PUMA” in its search bar and remove all infringing listings.

Division Bench Verdict: A Relief for Online Platforms

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court overturned the interim injunction, providing clarity on the limits of intermediary liability:

Not a Trademark Use: The Court held that auto-suggestions in the search bar do not constitute “use in the course of trade” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. These are automatically generated based on user inputs and do not represent deliberate usage or branding by the platform itself.

Intermediary Protection Under IT Act: IndiaMART was deemed to qualify for protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Court recognized the platform as a neutral intermediary that does not initiate or modify the content of the listings.

Compliance with Notice-and-Takedown Obligations: The Court observed that once PUMA notified IndiaMART of the infringing listings, the platform acted promptly to take them down. Therefore, it fulfilled its statutory duty and retained the protection under the safe harbour clause.

Obligations and Responsibilities for Intermediaries

While the Court reaffirmed IndiaMART’s intermediary status, it also clarified that such platforms are required to maintain robust mechanisms for taking down infringing content upon receiving notice from trademark owners. Failure to do so could result in losing safe harbour protection.

Key Legal Takeaways

Legal Point Court’s Ruling

Trademark Use Search bar suggestions are not “use in the course of trade”
Intermediary Role IndiaMART is a passive, neutral intermediary
Safe Harbour Maintained under IT Act Section 79
Takedown Duty Prompt removal after notice is mandatory

Impact on E-Commerce Industry

The ruling is expected to have a far-reaching impact on digital marketplaces, affirming that automated functions like search suggestions do not amount to active infringement. It also reinforces the need for platforms to establish strong internal protocols for addressing IP-related complaints.

Delhi High Court Stops Use of Deceptive “Domino’s” Variants in Trademark Dispute – Interim Relief for Domino’s Pizza

by

The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Domino’s IP Holder LLC and Jubilant FoodWorks Limited, restraining several businesses from using deceptively similar names to the globally recognized “Domino’s” trademark. The court passed the order in response to a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Domino’s against fifteen different entities operating under names such as Domnic’s Pizza, Dominic’s Pizza, Domnik Pizza, Damnic’s Pizza, and similar variants.

🔍 Court’s Findings on Deceptive Similarity

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, observed that the use of these variants could confuse customers due to the phonetic and visual similarity with Domino’s Pizza. Citing the sensitive nature of food-related services, the court stressed that any deceptive similarity in this sector can result in “disastrous consequences on human health.”The judge clarified that for edible goods, the threshold for proving deceptive similarity is lower, as average consumers may not exercise due caution in distinguishing between brand names, especially when placing orders online or in fast-paced environments.

🕵️‍♂️ Domino’s Longstanding Trademark Legacy

Domino’s provided evidence of its trademark lineage, starting in the 1960s under the name “Dominick’s Pizza”, and its transformation to “Domino’s Pizza” in 1965. The brand has since enjoyed uninterrupted use and global recognition. The court acknowledged this longstanding history and the brand’s significant market presence in India and worldwide.

⚖️ Order to Food Aggregators: Delist Infringing Entities

In a significant move, the court also directed popular food delivery platforms Zomato and Swiggy to delist all entities found to be using deceptively similar marks. This highlights the increasing responsibility of digital platforms in enforcing intellectual property laws and protecting consumers from counterfeit or misleading service providers.

⏳ Next Hearing Scheduled

The matter is now slated for its next hearing on September 17, 2025, until which time the interim injunction will remain in force, barring the infringing parties from using the disputed names in any form, including marketing, packaging, delivery, and branding.

🧠 Legal Significance

This case emphasizes the Indian judiciary’s proactive stance in protecting well-known trademarks in the food sector. It reinforces the principle that consumer health and brand integrity must not be compromised by opportunistic imitation or deceptive branding.

📌 Disclaimer:

This article is based on publicly available judicial records and news reports from Bar and Bench as of June 19, 2025. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For detailed legal interpretations, consult a qualified trademark or IP attorney.

Bombay High Court Dismisses TikTok Plea Seeking ‘Well-Known Trademark’ Status in India

by

In a major development in India’s intellectual property landscape, the Bombay High Court has rejected TikTok Ltd’s plea challenging the Trademark Registrar’s refusal to recognize the short-video platform’s name, “TikTok,” as a well-known trademark in India. The court cited national security concerns and the continuing ban on the platform as critical reasons for its decision.

Background of the Case

TikTok, owned by China-based ByteDance, had earlier registered its trademark in India and subsequently sought its designation as a well-known trademark under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. This status offers enhanced legal protection from infringement, imitation, or misuse across all product categories.However, the Registrar of Trademarks denied TikTok’s application in October 2023, citing the platform’s ban in India since 2020. The app was one of several Chinese-origin platforms banned under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act on grounds of national sovereignty and data security.High Court Ruling:

Legality Over Global Popularity

Delivering the verdict on June 10, 2025, Justice Manish Pitale of the Bombay High Court upheld the Registrar’s rejection and ruled that:TikTok’s global fame does not warrant “well-known” trademark status in India.Ongoing non-operation in India due to a government ban undermines any claim of local distinctiveness or reputation.The Registrar was justified in factoring in issues of sovereignty, public order, and national security while denying the application.The court clarified that operation within Indian jurisdiction is crucial for securing enhanced intellectual property status and that foreign entities must adhere to Indian legal standards and geopolitical considerations.

TikTok’s Legal Arguments Fall Short

TikTok argued through its counsel that the Registrar had failed to evaluate statutory criteria under Sections 11(6) to 11(9) of the Trade Marks Act, including global recognition, market presence, and history of enforcement. It maintained that the ban should not negate the app’s branding rights.However, the court found no procedural error or legal flaw in the Registrar’s decision, concluding that the considerations of national interest rightfully outweighed any commercial or reputational merit.

Implications for Foreign Digital Platforms

The judgment marks a precedent-setting interpretation of Indian IP law, particularly in relation to well-known trademarks under Rule 124. Legal experts suggest that this case underscores the importance of active, lawful operation within India as a precondition for obtaining elevated IP status.Moreover, the ruling reinforces that government-imposed restrictions and national security assessments are legitimate grounds for denying well-known status to foreign platforms, even if globally recognized.

⚠️ Disclaimer:

This news article is based on publicly available legal documents and journalistic sources. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or represent the views of TikTok Ltd, the Bombay High Court, or any government body. For legal interpretation or advice, please consult a licensed intellectual property professional.

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief to Volvo in Trademark Infringement Case Involving Counterfeit Buses

by

The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Swedish automobile giant Volvo, restraining multiple Indian entities from manufacturing, marketing, and operating buses that imitate the company’s design and illegally use its trademark. The order came in a trademark infringement suit filed by Volvo against several Indian defendants who allegedly attempted to pass off counterfeit buses as genuine Volvo vehicles.

Background: Volvo Takes Legal Action Against Trademark Violations

The lawsuit, filed under the title Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors, was prompted by the unauthorized use of Volvo’s iconic grille design and registered trademark by several parties involved in the Indian bus manufacturing and transport sectors. Volvo claimed that such actions were not only misleading consumers but also damaging the company’s reputation and brand value, cultivated over a century.

The key defendants in the case include:

Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs (Udaipur), accused of fabricating buses with a design identical to Volvo’s.

Rishabh Bus Pvt. Ltd. (New Delhi), which purchased and operated the infringing buses under the Volvo name.

Shanti Travels (Bahraich), found to be using Volvo’s distinctive grille design on their buses.

Court’s Observations and Order

Justice Amit Bansal observed that the defendants’ actions clearly constituted trademark infringement and passing off, both under statutory and common law principles. He noted that the evidence showed intentional imitation of Volvo’s distinctive front grille and brand name to deceive consumers into believing they were traveling in or purchasing genuine Volvo buses.

One of the defendants reportedly admitted to manufacturing more than 100 buses using the copied grille design, further solidifying the case for infringement.

Interim Injunction Granted

The court found a prima facie case in Volvo’s favor and stated that the balance of convenience leaned towards the plaintiff. As a result, an interim injunction was granted, restraining all named defendants from:

Using the Volvo mark, logo, or grille design;

Manufacturing or operating buses imitating Volvo’s design;

Advertising or offering any such services under the misleading brand association.

The matter is next scheduled for hearing on October 9, 2025.

Legal Representation and Industry Impact

Volvo was represented by Advocate Vaishali Mittal, along with Siddhant Chamola and Saijal Arora, who successfully argued the case highlighting the serious risk of consumer deception and brand dilution.

This ruling is seen as a strong message against counterfeit branding in the Indian automobile and transportation industry. It reinforces judicial support for intellectual property rights and demonstrates the court’s willingness to crack down on deliberate attempts to exploit globally recognized trademarks.

Disclaimer:

This news article is a factual and original representation based on publicly available legal documents and verified news sources, primarily including Bar & Bench. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All trademarks, including “Volvo,” are the property of their respective owners. Any mention herein is made under fair reporting standards.

TVS Trademarks Norton “Electra” Nameplate in India: Classic Revival or Electric Surprise?

by

In a significant step toward reviving and expanding the historic Norton Motorcycles brand, TVS Motor Company has officially filed a trademark for the name “Electra” in India. The move signals the brand’s intentions to develop new models under Norton’s iconic legacy and possibly enter the competitive mid-displacement motorcycle segment.

Norton Electra: A Blast from the Past

The “Electra” name isn’t new to motorcycle enthusiasts. Originally introduced in the 1960s, the Norton Electra was a lightweight, air-cooled parallel-twin motorcycle with modest displacement and elegant design. It was a part of Norton’s lightweight series that included models like the Jubilee and Navigator. By reintroducing the name, TVS appears to be bridging the gap between Norton’s heritage and its future product portfolio.

Trademark Strategy Suggests Product Expansion

The new Electra trademark, filed under Norton’s brand, follows earlier filings like “Norton Combat,” hinting at a comprehensive model revival strategy by TVS. Industry experts believe that the Electra moniker may be used for a new 400cc–500cc modern-classic motorcycle currently under development by Norton.

Reports suggest that Norton is working on a new middleweight platform that could serve multiple models. Given TVS’s experience with the Apache RR 310 and its collaboration with BMW for the G 310 series, it’s plausible that the new Electra will feature advanced engineering and a performance-oriented twin-cylinder setup.

Could Electra Be Electric?

The “Electra” name naturally sparks speculation about an electric motorcycle, especially amid the growing global EV trend. While there is no official confirmation, and the trademark application doesn’t explicitly state an electric drivetrain, some industry observers believe the model could debut as a future EV offering, aligning with TVS’s broader electrification goals.

However, the term “Electra” could just be a nod to classic heritage, similar to Royal Enfield’s past use of the name, rather than indicating an electric vehicle.

Expected Launch and Competition

The Norton Electra, if introduced as a mid-size modern-classic, would compete directly with Royal Enfield’s 450cc and 650cc models like the Hunter 450, Interceptor, and Classic series. A 2026 launch is anticipated, possibly following a global debut at the EICMA 2025 motorcycle show in Milan.

TVS aims to relaunch Norton with six all-new motorcycles in the next three years, catering to both legacy enthusiasts and modern riders. The Electra could play a crucial role in this product strategy by attracting global attention and reinforcing the Norton brand under Indian stewardship.

Disclaimer

This article is based on publicly available information, including trademark filings and industry speculation. No official product specifications or release dates have been confirmed by TVS Motor Company or Norton Motorcycles at the time of publication. The content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, engineering, or legal advice.

Akari Therapeutics Receives Patent in India for Thailanstatin Analogues, Boosting Global IP Portfolio

by

Biopharmaceutical company Akari Therapeutics Plc (NASDAQ: AKTX), focused on developing advanced therapies for rare and autoimmune diseases, has secured a significant intellectual property milestone with the granting of a patent in India for its innovative thailanstatin analogues. The Indian Patent Office issued Patent No. 562,919, providing the company exclusive rights to its proprietary RNA splicing inhibitor compounds in a key international market.

What the Patent Covers

The newly granted patent protects a class of thailanstatin analogues—molecules designed to modulate RNA splicing, a process central to gene expression. By inhibiting aberrant RNA splicing, these analogues have the potential to treat various inflammatory, autoimmune, and possibly oncology-related disorders. The compounds were designed as part of Akari’s continued research into spliceosome-targeting molecules.

India’s Strategic Role in Biopharmaceutical IP

India represents a critical frontier for pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents due to its manufacturing capacity and growing role in global clinical trials and generic drug production. With this patent, Akari strengthens its global intellectual property portfolio, potentially securing its commercial interests in one of the world’s largest emerging healthcare markets.

The patent award helps Akari deter unauthorized replication or biosimilar production of its unique compounds within India. It also enhances the company’s ability to pursue partnerships, licensing agreements, and regulatory clearances in the Asian region.

CEO’s Perspective and Company Outlook

Though no direct comment was included in the announcement, Akari has historically emphasized the importance of intellectual property rights in key international markets as part of its business strategy. The protection of the thailanstatin platform in India aligns with previous IP grants in the United States and other jurisdictions, strengthening the company’s long-term clinical and commercial roadmap.

Akari’s lead candidate, nomacopan, is currently undergoing clinical evaluations for diseases like bullous pemphigoid and pediatric hematologic disorders. While thailanstatin analogues are still at a preclinical or early-development phase, their global patent coverage signals Akari’s readiness for future growth and drug commercialization.

Investor Insight and Market Sentiment

The announcement comes at a time when investor confidence is climbing. Recently, Alliance Global Partners raised its price target for Akari Therapeutics from $4 to $7, maintaining a Buy rating. Analysts cited the company’s robust IP position and maturing pipeline as key drivers of this positive outlook.

Disclaimer

This news article is for informational purposes only and is based on publicly available sources, including announcements made by Akari Therapeutics and related financial coverage. It does not constitute financial advice or an endorsement of any stock, product, or company. Readers are advised to conduct their own due diligence and consult with financial or medical professionals before making any investment or healthcare decisions.

Xiaomi Patents Advanced Solid-State Battery for Electric Vehicles with 1,200km Range and 10-Minute Charging

by

In a significant step toward revolutionizing electric vehicle (EV) battery performance, Chinese tech giant Xiaomi has registered a groundbreaking patent for a new solid-state battery design featuring a layered electrode architecture. This move signals the company’s growing ambitions in the EV space, where high-performance batteries are key to long-term success.

Xiaomi’s Solid-State Innovation: What’s New?

As per documents reported by electrive.com, the patented battery structure consists of:

A multi-layer electrode assembly,

A solid-state electrolyte composed of polymers and metal salts,

Active materials, conductive agents, and binders arranged in layers.

One of the core innovations lies in how the solid electrolyte penetrates vertically through the electrode layers. This configuration significantly reduces the distance lithium ions must travel, thereby enhancing ionic conductivity, energy density, and charging speed—long-standing challenges in solid-state battery development.

Game-Changing Battery Performance

The patent includes details that position Xiaomi’s prototype among the most advanced in the world:

CTB (Cell-to-Body) design with a 77.8% volume efficiency,

Pack height as low as 120 mm, optimizing vehicle interior space,

Estimated driving range of over 1,200 km (745 miles),

Ultra-fast charging: 800 km range in just 10 minutes.

These specifications could give Xiaomi a powerful edge in the increasingly competitive EV battery race.

Solid-State Battery Landscape: Rising Competition

Solid-state batteries are touted as the future of EV energy storage due to their:

Higher energy density,

Improved thermal stability,

Greater safety compared to liquid-based lithium-ion batteries.

Automakers and battery manufacturers such as Toyota, BMW, Nio, and CATL are also racing toward commercialization, with production timelines mostly targeting 2027–2030. Xiaomi’s patent, however, hints at earlier deployment by leveraging existing lithium-ion manufacturing infrastructure, a move that could reduce time-to-market.

Xiaomi’s EV Strategy Gains Momentum

With its debut EV, the Xiaomi SU7 sedan, already entering production, this battery development adds critical depth to Xiaomi’s automotive roadmap. The company aims to start global EV sales by 2027, and in-house solid-state battery development could significantly reduce reliance on suppliers such as CATL and BYD.

By aligning battery innovation with its broader vertical integration strategy, Xiaomi is setting the stage to become a formidable player in the global EV market.

Disclaimer

This news article is based on publicly available sources, including reports from electrive.com dated June 16, 2025. All information about Xiaomi’s patent and EV plans is accurate as of the time of writing. The content is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal, or professional advice. Xiaomi has not made any official announcement regarding the commercial release of the patented technology.

Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief to ‘Social’ Pub Chain in Trademark Dispute with ‘Social Tribe’

by

In a significant ruling for intellectual property rights in the hospitality industry, the Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., owner of the well-known “Social” chain of pubs and cafés, in a trademark infringement case against a Mumbai-based restaurant operating under the name “Social Tribe.”

Trademark Dispute: Social vs. Social Tribe

The plaintiff, Impresario Entertainment, has alleged that Social Tribe infringed on its well-established “Social” brand by using a deceptively similar name and branding strategy. According to the plaintiff, the use of the word “Social” by the defendant created confusion among customers and diluted the distinctiveness of the original brand.

Impresario’s “Social” brand, first launched in 2001, has since grown into a nationwide hospitality chain with more than 50 outlets and a total turnover exceeding ₹1,500 crore. The company holds over 100 trademark registrations, including protection under Class 43, which covers services in the restaurant and food industry.

High Court Observations and Interim Relief

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, presiding over the case, ruled that Impresario had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. The Court concluded that the term “Tribe” added to the word “Social” was not sufficient to distinguish the new establishment from the plaintiff’s brand. It also noted that the use of similar color schemes and marketing themes further increased the risk of consumer deception.

> “A brazen attempt is made by the Defendant to infringe the said trade mark which requires to be restrained,” Justice Deshmukh observed in her order.

The Court emphasized that without interim protection, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm, especially given the extensive reputation the “Social” brand has built over the years.

Court Order: Prohibition on Use of ‘Social’ by Defendant

The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Social Tribe from using the term “Social” or any confusingly similar variants in their brand name, business operations, advertisements, and marketing materials.

The case is being heard under the title Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Social Tribe.

Legal Representation

The plaintiff was represented by a legal team consisting of Hiren Kamod, Shikha Sachdeva, Rahul Punjabi, Kranav Kapur, Radhika Arora, and Annie Jacob, under the instructions of Rahul Punjabi.

This news article is based on publicly available information from verified sources and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. All trademarks and brand names mentioned are the property of their respective owners.