Summary
Explore landmark Indian trademark rulings from 2025, covering infringement, trade dress, intermediary liability, and procedural fairness. Essential insights for brand owners and legal professionals.
Trademarks, as most business owners and brand custodians would appreciate, serve as the face of a brand in the marketplace. The protection of trademarks, however, extends beyond mere registration – it encompasses questions of use, distinctiveness, consumer perception, and the boundaries of rights in an increasingly digital economy. In 2025, Indian courts addressed several of these questions, including initial interest confusion, trade dress protection, substantial damages for wilful infringement, the limits of protection for laudatory expressions, and intermediary liability on e-commerce platforms.
This compilation brings together some of the most significant trademark-related articles from Intellepedia that resonated with our readers over the past year. Each addresses principles and precedents of particular relevance to brand owners, e-commerce operators, and trademark practitioners seeking to understand the current state of the law.
Featured Trademark Articles
| Under Armour Vs. Aero Armour: Initial Interest Confusion and Trademark Infringement
Published: 27 May 2025 | Author: Dr. Kalyan Kankanala The Delhi High Court intervened in a trademark dispute between sportswear giant Under Armour and Indian apparel maker Aero Armour. The Division Bench adopted the ‘initial interest confusion’ doctrine—an approach that protects against momentary consumer deception at the point of initial contact with a mark, even if confusion dissipates before purchase. The court found that seeing ‘AERO ARMOUR’ could trigger mistaken association with the established brand, fulfilling infringement standards under Indian trademark law. This decision is significant for brand owners as it recognises that trademark protection extends to preventing confusion that captures consumer attention, even when the confusion may not persist through to the point of sale. |
| ORSL vs ERSI: Delhi Court’s Ruling in Johnson & Johnson ORSL Trademark Infringement Case
Published: 22 July 2025 | Author: Gaurav Mishra The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. in a trademark infringement case, issuing a permanent injunction and awarding approximately Rs. 1.21 crore in damages. Defendants had marketed competing products under marks such as ‘ERSI FRUIT DRINK’ and ‘ElectroORS’ that mimicked J&J’s distinctive red-and-white packaging, script styling, and fruit device imagery. The court found the defendants’ marks and trade dress exhibited deceptive similarity likely to confuse consumers. This case demonstrates that trademark protection in India extends to trade dress—the overall visual impression of a product’s packaging—and that courts are prepared to award substantial damages when infringement is established. |
| Amazon Ordered to Pay Rs 336 Crore in Damages for Wilful Trademark Infringement
Published: 27 February 2025 | Author: Intellepedia Amazon Technologies was found liable for wilfully infringing the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark, resulting in one of the largest trademark damages awards in Indian judicial history. The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded damages totalling approximately Rs. 339.23 crore combined (Rs. 336 crore in compensatory damages plus Rs. 3.23 crore in litigation costs). The court determined Amazon Technologies directly controlled the ‘Symbol’ brand licensing and therefore bore responsibility despite the involvement of subsidiary companies in the actual sales. This landmark judgment signals that Indian courts are willing to impose substantial penalties for trademark infringement, particularly where wilfulness is established. |
| When ‘WOW’ Isn’t Your Own: Trademark Infringement Between MOMO and BURGER
Published: 15 September 2025 | Author: T K Tushar The Delhi High Court rejected Wow Momo’s bid to monopolise the word ‘WOW’ in a trademark dispute that clarifies the limits of trademark protection for common laudatory expressions. The court noted that ‘WOW’ is a laudatory expression commonly used in everyday language to convey delight or quality. The critical legal principle established: common or descriptive words require proof of ‘secondary meaning’ through long, continuous, and exclusive use to gain trademark protection. The court emphasised this hadn’t been demonstrated here, especially given widespread use of ‘WOW’ across the food industry. This decision provides important guidance for brand owners considering marks that incorporate common words or expressions. |
| IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary Liability
Published: 6 June 2025 | Author: Dr. Kalyan Kankanala In a significant Delhi High Court decision, a Division Bench reversed an earlier injunction against IndiaMART for offering PUMA as a selection option in seller registration drop-down menus. The court found that offering trademark terms as menu options differs meaningfully from trademark infringement, noting that drop-down suggestions function as classification aids rather than brand endorsements. On intermediary liability, the court determined IndiaMART qualified for protection under information technology law, provided it promptly removes infringing listings upon notice. This decision is particularly relevant for e-commerce platform operators, as it clarifies that providing trademark terms for categorisation purposes does not automatically constitute trademark use or infringement. |
| Technical Delay Cannot Lead to Trademark Opposition Abandonment
Published: 11 July 2025 | Author: Benita Alphonsa Basil The Delhi High Court recently ruled that minor procedural lapses should not override substantive justice in trademark disputes. The case involved Raj Vardhan Patodia (HUF) challenging the Trade Marks Registry’s decision to abandon his opposition due to late filing of an original affidavit. The High Court emphasised that procedural norms should not defeat substantive rights especially where the party has acted in good faith. The court set aside the abandonment order, directing the opposition to proceed on merits. This decision provides important guidance for trademark practitioners navigating procedural requirements before the Registry. |
| Trademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement Suit
Published: 8 August 2025 | Author: Dr. Kalyan Kankanala The Delhi High Court ruled that filing a trademark application does not constitute trademark infringement. In Deepak Kumar Khemka v. Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors., the court dismissed a suit seeking to prevent anticipated use of a similar mark, emphasising that infringement requires actual use in commerce. The court reaffirmed established law: the trigger point for an infringement action is use, not registration of trademarks. The judgment clarified that Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act requires actual use in trade. This decision is particularly relevant for brand owners considering pre-emptive enforcement actions. |
| Non Use of Trademark Leads to Cancellation: Delhi High Court Favours Zepto
Published: 19 April 2025 | Author: T K Tushar The Delhi High Court ordered the removal of the ‘ZEPTO’ trademark from the register due to non-use. Kiranakart Technologies, which operates the quick commerce app Zepto, filed a rectification petition seeking cancellation of Mohammad Arshad’s earlier trademark registration in Class 35. The core legal principle applied was straightforward: mere registration does not grant indefinite rights unless the mark is actively used in trade. This decision reinforces trademark law’s fundamental requirement that owners must demonstrate genuine commercial activity to maintain their registrations. |
| Delhi High Court Remands Trademark Applications for Re-Examination
Published: 20 August 2025 | Author: Intellepedia The Delhi High Court recently intervened in trademark examination procedures, remanding five applications back to the Trade Marks Registry for fresh consideration. The case centred on M/s Kamdhenu Limited v. Union of India & Ors., where the company challenged approvals it claimed violated statutory procedures. The court found acceptance orders issued within minutes of receipt of responses, indicating lack of application of mind. The Registry subsequently acknowledged the lapses and initiated disciplinary action against responsible examiners. This decision highlights the court’s willingness to scrutinise Registry procedures and ensure compliance with statutory requirements. |
Looking Ahead
The trademark-related developments of 2025 reflect the evolving challenges of brand protection in a marketplace that increasingly spans both physical and digital domains. From the application of initial interest confusion doctrine to the boundaries of intermediary liability, Indian courts have provided guidance that brand owners and platform operators must consider carefully.
For brand owners, e-commerce operators, and trademark practitioners, staying informed of these developments is essential for effective brand protection strategies. We at Intellepedia remain committed to providing comprehensive, accessible, and timely coverage of trademark law developments.
In order to stay updated on future trademark law developments, readers may consider bookmarking Intellepedia and visiting regularly for our latest posts. As always, the articles are intended for informational purposes, and specific legal advice should be sought from qualified professionals for individual matters.