IP News Updates: June-December 2025

Tussle over Pisco: Chile v. Peru 

Peru and Chile approach the Delhi High Court to resolve a long-standing dispute over the origins of Pisco, a grape brandy. Initially, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) granted Peru the Geographical Indication (GI) with a geographical identifier, recognizing that Pisco was produced in both Peru and Chile. Dissatisfied with the registration of “Peruvian Pisco”, Peru appealed to the IPAB seeking removal of the geographical identifier, contending that Pisco originated exclusively from Peru. The IPAB accepted this contention and granted Peru the GI for Pisco without any geographical identifiers. In an appeal before the Delhi High Court, the Chilean producers challenged this decision. The court, while acknowledging that Pisco has genuine roots in both geographical regions, reserved the IPAB decision. The single-judge bench clarified that trademark law principles such as prior use or misappropriation do not apply in the same manner to GI law, and further held that homonymous GIs are permissible where two or more geographical regions legitimately produce the same product, subject to safeguards against consumer confusion. 

Denmark’s Unique Solution to Combat AI Deepfakes

In an innovative move, Denmark plans to use copyright law protections to combat the issue of AI deepfakes. Traditionally, deepfakes are addressed under privacy laws; however, the Danish government aims to empower individuals not only to stop deepfakes through privacy laws but also to control and potentially monetize facial features, body, and voice, as if it were a copyrighted work. This approach would grant people legal ownership over their own likeness, allowing them to request takedowns and seek compensation for unauthorized use, similar to a copyright infringement claim.

AI to Examine Patent Applications: US and China

The Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) plans to improve the application of AI to streamline the patent examination process. Although CNIPA has been using AI since 2023 to assist with searches on invention concepts, image retrieval of partial designs, and automated case clustering and allocation, the office plans to expand its use further into comparison searches, technical analysis, and invention breakdowns. However, it clarified that AI will only act as an assistive tool and that examiners must still make independent decisions in accordance with the law.

In a similar feat, the USPTO introduced DesignVision, an AI-powered image search tool integrated into its Patents End-to-End system to assist examiners with prior art searches for design patent evaluations. The tool enables examiners to search across more than 80 global intellectual property databases by uploading images. Recognising concerns over transparency, the USPTO has also stated that a detailed record of AI use will be maintained without disclosing confidential application images. The tool complies with federal security standards and could potentially be expanded to other patent examiners in the future.

Havells India Shells out 129.6 Crores in Settlement

Putting an end to a decade-long trademark dispute over the legitimate use of “Havells,” Havells India and the HPL Group have decided to settle out of court. The two parties had several suits pending in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India. The Delhi High Court had referred the disputes to mediation, which led to a settlement. As part of the settlement, Havells India has agreed to pay Rs. 129.6 crore to the HPL Group and its promoters. In exchange, the HPL Group will provide an undertaking acknowledging Havells’ use of the mark and agreeing to waive any legal remedies in this regard in the future.

Attempts to Re-establish Twitter Met with Lawsuit

Following the rebranding of Twitter to X in 2023, two US trademark lawyers established Operation Bluebird, a start-up with a mission to re-establish Twitter. They secured the domain twitter.new and made an application to the USPTO to cancel the "Twitter" trademark registrations based on abandonment and rebranding. In their application, they evidence the abandonment by quoting tweets from Elon Musk, the owner and executive chairman of X. In an application to the US District Court of Delaware, X sought an injunctive relief from Operation Bluebird for trademark infringement of the Twitter marks. Additionally, in order to fight the abandonment claims, X updated their terms of service to include Twitter in their trademark use/permissions portion. 

Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia University: Merchandise Wars

Columbia Sportswear and Columbia University entered into an agreement in 2023 regarding the use of the "Colombia" trademarks. The agreement permitted the University to use the word "Columbia" on merchandise as long as it was in a recognizable school insignia, with its mascot and the word "university" for a fee of £200 million.  However, within a year of the agreement, the former noticed the market being flooded with deceptively similar branding. Columbia Sportswear claimed that they have used the brand since 1938 and alleged that the University's merchandise causes customer confusion. As a result, the apparel brand took to court for injunctive relief and damages over the violation of contractual terms and trademark infringement. 

India Witnesses the First Successful Olfactory Trademark Registration

Olfactory marks or smell marks have had a difficult history in securing registration in India. In 2023, a Japanese company, Sumitomo Rubber, applied to the Indian Patents and Trademarks Office to register a rose-like floral fragrance embedded in its tyres. The IPO has stated that a smell mark must be non-functional, distinctive, and capable of graphical representation in order to be registered. Sumitomo made a strong case for registration, as the mark had already been registered in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, since 1996. The company also presented the IPO with a mathematical vectograph mapping the scent across various primary indicators such as floral, fruity, pungent, minty, and nutty. 

Bundai claims the No.1 Spot in Japan’s 2025 Game and Entertainment Patent Rankings: Overtakes Sony 

Patent Result, a Japanese patent analysis organisation, reported that for the fiscal year spanning April 2024 to March 2025, Bandai emerged as the company with the highest number of patents in Japan within the gaming and entertainment industry. Bandai holds 245 patents, followed by Sony Interactive with 208. The list also includes other major industry players such as Nintendo, Sega, and Cygames. The organisation explained that each patent was scored based on the level of attention paid to the application and then multiplied by the remaining duration of patent protection to calculate an overall score for each company. This methodology was intended to illustrate each company’s commitment to investing in patent rights.

25-Year Trademark Battle Comes to an End: Mars v. Cadbury

Mars Inc had been using the “CELEBRATIONS” mark since 1988 for an assortment of gift boxes of its chocolates, where the term consisted of a letter denoting each of the chocolates in the assortment. Cadbury later adopted this mark for its own assortment box in India. As a result, the two global confectionery giants have been in dispute over the use and ownership of  “CELEBRATIONS” since 2000. In 2025, this long-standing battle involving multiple oppositions, rectification applications, and lawsuits came to an end. A settlement was reached, with both parties agreeing to revoke their respective oppositions and rectification applications. Although the details of the settlement agreement have not been made public, it appears that both companies will continue to use the term for their respective products without interfering with the other’s use. The settlement was accompanied by a unique declaration by both parties to mark the end of the dispute by distributing confectionery assortments worth INR 500,000 to government schools in Delhi.

Rubik’s Cube Cannot be Trademarked: EU Court

A Canadian toy company, Spin Master (through its predecessors), held trademark registrations for the design of the Rubik’s Cube. In 2013, Verdes Innovations, a Greek company, filed an invalidation application before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), arguing that the cube’s design was purely functional and therefore ineligible for trademark protection. Spin Master, however, contended that the design had acquired iconic status beyond its functional features. The EUIPO initially ruled in favour of Verdes Innovations, finding that the trademark consisted exclusively of the toy’s essential functional characteristics. Spin Master subsequently appealed to the General Court of the European Union, where the Luxembourg-based judges upheld the EUIPO’s decision, concluding that the registered elements were not sufficiently “iconic” to outweigh their functional purpose. 

A Win for AI: Getty Images v. Stability AI

Getty Images brought a copyright infringement claim against Stability AI before the High Court of England and Wales in 2023, alleging that Stability AI used its image catalogue to train the Stable Diffusion model. Getty relied on secondary copyright infringement, arguing that an infringing “article” containing its works had been imported into the UK to generate new images.

The Court, departing from the position generally adopted in the European Union, held that an “article” for the purposes of secondary infringement may be intangible. However, it further found that Stable Diffusion does not contain, store, or reproduce copyrighted works, and that UK users merely access a hosted service rather than import infringing material into the jurisdiction. Accordingly, this was insufficient to establish secondary infringement. The judgment may be subject to appeal, particularly given its divergence from the EU approach, which typically limits the concept of an “article” to tangible copies or storage.

AI News Summaries Potentially Infringe Copyrights: US District Court

In a swarm of AI content-related lawsuits, an interesting summary judgment has emerged from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Major news and magazine publishers brought a case to court over AI-generated news summaries in February 2025. The U.S. judge, while applying principles of copyright infringement to summaries, held that although facts are not protected under copyright law, their expression is protected. Therefore, if AI-generated summaries copy the expression of the news while providing summaries, it would constitute copyright infringement. She further specified that each article would have to be compared and checked individually, as the test is qualitative rather than quantitative; that is, it is not based on word count, but rather on the structure, emphasis, pacing, and narrative of the news article.

Parasitism Claim Upheld in the Absence of Copyright Infringement

Bulgari sued APM Monaco before the Paris Court of Appeal for copyright infringement concerning its Serpenti motif bracelet. While comparing the two bracelets, the Court held that they differed from a design perspective, noting identifiable variations between them, and therefore rejected the copyright infringement claim. However, the Court upheld Bulgari’s claim of parasitism, a remedy available under French unfair competition law. A parasitism claim may be established where a competitor unfairly benefits from the investments, efforts, or commercial risk undertaken by another brand in promoting a product or service. The Court found that APM had taken unfair advantage of Bulgari’s design and marketing investments and ordered it to pay €130,000 in damages, recognising both moral harm and dilution of the design.