Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Court favors AR Rahman, rejects claims that Dagar Brothers composed Shiva Stuti

Music composer at studio desk with headphones; banner text reads “Court favors AR Rahman, rejects claims Dagar Brothers composed Shiva Stuti.”

The Delhi High Court ruled that the Dagar Brothers were not the authors of Shiva Stuti, setting aside an earlier order and supporting AR Rahman’s appeal. The decision clarifies that authorship and originality are essential for copyright protection in Indian classical music.

Injunction in V3 Trademark Dispute Denied Over Unclean Hands

Image of two pair of hands folding clothes and garments on a table.

The Bombay High Court refused interim relief in the V3 trademark dispute, finding both parties had suppressed facts and acted inconsistently. The decision underscores that equitable remedies require parties to come with clean hands.

Alia Bhatt Case: Court Stops Ex-Personal Secretary from Sharing Confidential Info

In the case of Eternal Sunshine Productions Pvt. Ltd. vs Vedika Prakash Shetty, the Bombay High Court stepped in to protect sensitive personal data of actor Ms. Alia Bhatt. The court upheld the confidentiality obligations set out in a release letter and restrained the former personal secretary from disclosing private information to the public or media.

Strategic Delay Costs Novartis Its Cross-Examination Rights

Banner with text “Tactical Delay Proves Costly for Novartis” beside a clock and wooden blocks spelling DELAY on an orange background

The Delhi High Court dismissed Novartis’s writ petitions, ruling it had waived cross-examination by opting for rebuttal evidence. The Controller’s orders were upheld, with the patent already revoked days earlier.

CRI Patentability Affirmed: Madras High Court Rules in Favor of Syngene

Illustration of a legal decision on computer-related inventions: code snippet on the left, legal gavel and scales on the right, with the title 'Madras HC Reboots Computer-Related Invention Refusal' in the center.

Madras HC upholds CRI patentability in Syngene’s case, ruling novel hardware isn’t a prerequisite for protection under Section 3(k).

Aishwarya Rai Gets Court Relief Against Deepfakes, Fake Merchandise, and Online Impersonation

In the case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs Aishwaryaworld.Com, the Delhi High Court restrained several websites, online sellers, and digital content creators from misusing the identity of the celebrity through unauthorised merchandise, websites, AI-generated impersonations, and obscene deepfakes.

Non-Disclosure of Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Natural Justice, Rules Delhi High Court

3D illustration of repeating blue molecular structures representing chemical compounds, symbolizing scientific formulations or agrochemical compositions.

In Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court emphasized procedural fairness and ruled that the non-disclosure of prior art in a hearing notice constitutes a breach of natural justice. The Court remanded the case for fresh evaluation.

When ‘WOW’ Isn’t Your Own: Trademark Infringement Between MOMO and BURGER

Split banner: plate of steamed momos with red chutney vs sesame-seed burger with text “WOW? A MOMO or a BURGER”

The Delhi High Court ruled that generic terms like WOW cannot be exclusively claimed as trademarks without strong secondary meaning. This decision emphasises the need for distinctive elements in branding under Indian trademark law.

Winning the Race for ‘X1’: A Trademark Dispute Resolved

X1-branded jetski races ahead on a track as cars chase.

The Delhi District Court resolved the X1 trademark dispute between Ashish Aggarwal and M/s Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd by granting a permanent injunction. The judgment upholds the enforceability of trademark rights in sports event branding and addresses issues of infringement, jurisdiction, and profits.

Glucon-D and Glucon-C Trademark Suit: Court Says Pre-Litigation Mediation is Mandatory

In the case of Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited, involving the trademarks “Glucon-D” and “Glucon-C”, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that plaintiffs must mandatorily attempt pre-litigation mediation before filing commercial suits, unless there is a clear and justifiable urgency requiring interim relief. The Court examined the timeline of the plaintiff’s actions and found no genuine urgency to bypass the mediation step.