IP News Updates: March - June 2025

1. Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Stay in PPL–Azure Copyright Dispute

Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) has accused Azure Hospitality (operators of Mamagoto and Sly Granny) of using its copyrighted sound recordings without a license. Azure contests PPL's authority, arguing PPL is not a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act. After an initial injunction against Azure by a Delhi High Court Single Judge on 3 March, 2025, a Division Bench modified it on 15 April, 2025, allowing Azure to play music while paying RMPL (Recorded Music Performance Ltd.) tariffs, treating PPL as an RMPL member. PPL challenged this in the Supreme Court. On 21 April 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the Division Bench's payment direction, but clarified it did not reinstate the original injunction. Further, on 19 June 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that the stay applies only between PPL and Azure, preventing third parties from using it to avoid PPL fees. The case remains pending, with the next hearing scheduled for 21 July 2025.

2. Bombay High Court Rejects TikTok’s Well-Known Mark Claim

TikTok’s application for recognition as a well-known trademark was denied by the Trade Marks Registrar and upheld by the Bombay High Court. The Registrar cited the government’s ban on the app in 2020, concerns around data security, and the app’s Chinese server base. TikTok challenged the decision, arguing that relevant provisions under Section 11(6) of the Indian Trademarks Act were overlooked. The Court held that the Registrar was entitled to consider the broader context, including the ban. It affirmed that the factors under Section 11(6) are illustrative, and found no reason to interfere with the refusal.

3. Even Intermediate Compounds Must Show Enhanced Efficacy Under Section 3(d) Says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Indian Patent Office's decision to reject Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.'s divisional patent application for an intermediate compound. The Court ruled that the compound, being a minor variation of an already disclosed substance, lacked an inventive step. The Court clarified that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which excludes the "mere discovery of a new form of a known substance," applies even to intermediate compounds not directly used as medicines. Without evidence of enhanced therapeutic efficacy in the final drug, minor technical improvements or process efficiencies are insufficient for patent grant.

4. Delhi High Court Affirms Non-Patentability of Algorithm-Based Invention 

The Delhi High Court has affirmed the Indian Patent Office's decision to reject Kroll Information Assurance LLC's patent application for “a system to identify users on peer-to-peer networks” (A system to find out who is sharing files online with others). While allowing amendments to the patent claim, the Court ultimately found the invention non-patentable under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The ruling emphasised that the invention lacked technical advancement, being essentially standard software which conducted keyword-based searches. Claims related to a "computer program per se" and "algorithms" were deemed unpatentable under Indian law. 

5. Delhi High Court Stays ₹339 Crore Damages Against Amazon in a Trademark Case

The Delhi High Court stayed a February 2025 order directing Amazon Technologies to pay ₹339 crore in damages to Lifestyle Equities. The case involved trademark infringement of the Beverly Hills Polo Club brand. The original order had held Amazon liable for misuse through its "Symbol" brand apparel sold with former seller Cloudtail India. The Division Bench, however, found no specific evidence directly linking Amazon Technologies to the infringing act of affixing the mark or selling the products. The Court noted the single judge's conclusions were too generalised and lacked pleadings establishing Amazon Tech's direct involvement. Calling the demand for pre-deposit a "travesty of justice," the High Court granted the stay without requiring any upfront payment, subject to Amazon's undertaking to pay if the appeal fails. The case is set for its next hearing on 9 October 2025.

6. Vadodara Court Grants Interim Relief to Inox India After Supreme Court’s Clarification in Cryogas Copyright Dispute

On 11 June 2025, the Vadodara Commercial Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Inox India Pvt. Ltd., restraining Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. from using or reproducing Inox's proprietary engineering drawings and confidential information related to cryogenic semi-trailers. The Court found a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement and breach of confidence, highlighting the substantial similarity between the parties' drawings (including copied spelling errors) and the involvement of former Inox employees currently working with Cryogas. This order follows the Supreme Court's 17 May 2025 ruling, where Cryogas's attempt to summarily dismiss Inox's claim under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected. The Supreme Court laid down a two-pronged test to determine whether a work is protected as an artistic work under the Copyright Act or qualifies as a design under the Designs Act. It directed the trial court to decide Inox's application for interim relief based on this framework within two months. Applying the test, the Vadodara court concluded that Inox's drawings were artistic and literary works entitled to copyright protection, not industrial designs requiring registration under the Designs Act. 

7. Indian Patent Office Releases Draft Computer-Related Inventions Guidelines 2025

The Indian Patent Office released a revised version of the Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs) on 26 June 2025, aimed at bringing greater clarity to the patentability of software and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and quantum computing. This draft builds on an earlier March 2025 version. Known as Draft CRI Guidelines 2.0, the document introduces a structured framework for examiners, including the "Seven Stambhas" test for assessing novelty and a five-step test for inventive step. It emphasises the need for CRIs to demonstrate a "technical effect" and aligns patent examination more closely with Indian case law, referencing decisions like Ferid Allani v. Union of India and Ericsson v. Lava. The guidelines also lay down detailed disclosure requirements for AI models, cryptographic methods, and blockchain systems. However, inventions classified as business methods or algorithms per se remain excluded from patent protection. The deadline for public comments closed on 7 July. 

8. Delhi High Court to Hear Novo Nordisk–Dr. Reddy’s Semaglutide Patent Dispute on 19 August

A high-stakes patent battle is underway between Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories over semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy. Novo has accused Dr. Reddy’s and its contract manufacturer of infringing its formulation patent (Indian Patent No. 262697) by producing and exporting semaglutide without consent. While the Delhi High Court, on 29 May, restrained Dr. Reddy's from selling the drug within India, it allowed exports, noting that the question of whether such exports are protected under India's Bolar exemption (allows generic drug makers to use a patented invention for research and regulatory approval before the patent expires, so they can launch the product immediately after expiry) or violate patent rights remains unresolved. Dr. Reddy's has also filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of the formulation patent. The Court will next hear the matter on 19 August 2025, where it is expected to examine key issues including patent evergreening, technical advancement, and the scope of export exemptions under Indian patent law.

9. Delhi High Court Grants ‘Superlative Injunction’ to Star India for Real-Time Piracy Blocking

On 29 May 2025, the Delhi High Court granted Star India a landmark "superlative injunction" in Star India v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors., enabling real-time blocking of infringing websites and rogue mobile applications distributing pirated IPL and sports content. The order issued during the Court's summer vacation allowed Star to notify ISPs and app platforms directly without fresh court filings. This expanded the scope of earlier dynamic injunctions and remained in force until 3 July 2025.

10. Indian Courts Ramp Up Protection of Personality Rights Amid Rising AI Misuse

In a string of recent rulings, Indian courts have stepped up enforcement of personality and publicity rights to curb the rising misuse of public figures’ identities, particularly through AI-generated content and deepfakes.

The Delhi High Court granted a wide-ranging ‘dynamic+’ injunction (protected yet-to-be created content) in favour of spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, restraining rogue websites and unknown entities from using his name, voice, likeness, or appearance (especially using AI) to promote unauthorised content. The Court observed that Sadhguru’s distinct personality traits were being commercially exploited through doctored AI videos, and takedown orders were issued to platforms and government agencies.

In a similar development, the same Court issued a 'John Doe' injunction in favour of Ankur Warikoo, a well-known personal finance educator and author, after deepfake videos surfaced falsely depicting him endorsing dubious investment platforms. Recognising the risk to both his reputation and the public at large, the Court ordered social media platforms to remove infringing content within 36 hours and directed disclosure of the identities behind the fake accounts. The Court observed a prima facie case of harm and scheduled the next hearing for 8 October 2025.

Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining the release of the film "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar", holding that the use of the name "Karan Johar", whether wholly or partly, violated the filmmaker's personality and publicity rights. The Court agreed that his name had acquired brand value and could not be commercially exploited without consent, especially when used in a manner likely to confuse the public.

11. Centre Notifies Draft Amendment Requiring Online-Only Payments

In a move aimed at digitising India's copyright infrastructure, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a draft notification on 4 June 2025, proposing amendments to the Copyright Rules, 2013. The Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2025, introduce a new provision–Rule 83A, which mandates that all licence fees for literary, musical, and sound recording works be collected solely via online payment mechanisms. The rules require copyright owners and licensors to establish and maintain digital portals to facilitate such payments. It also prohibits alternative payment modes, such as cash or cheque, thereby standardising fee collection and ensuring traceability. Stakeholders and the public were invited to submit objections or suggestions by 5 July 2025.

12. Government Forms Expert Committee to Examine AI and Copyright Law

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has constituted a multi-stakeholder committee to examine legal and policy issues arising from using AI in the context of copyright law. The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) issued an official memorandum on 28 April 2025, announcing the formation of the committee, which has been tasked with assessing whether the current legal framework under the Copyright Act, 1957, is adequate to address challenges posed by AI-generated content. It will prepare a working paper analysing these issues and suggesting possible reforms.

13. Centre Notifies New Rules for Benefit Sharing from Use of Biodiversity

The Biological Diversity (Access to Biological Resources and Knowledge Associated thereto and Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits) Regulation, 2025, was notified by the Central government on 29 April 2025. The rules introduce a tiered benefit-sharing model based on the user's annual turnover. Entities with turnovers above ₹5 crore must contribute between 0.2% and 0.6% of their gross yearly ex-factory sale price, depending on the turnover bracket. Companies using high-value or threatened species such as red sanders and sandalwood will have to share at least 5% of proceeds, rising to over 20% in some commercial uses. However, users of cultivated medicinal plants are exempt from benefit-sharing, in line with the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023. The new regulation also replaces the 2014 guidelines and now includes digital sequence information, reflecting global shifts discussed at COP16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

14. US Courts Deliver Mixed Rulings on Fair Use in AI Copyright Cases

Recent federal court decisions in the United States have provided early but divergent interpretations of how fair use applies to AI models trained on copyrighted material.

In Bartz v. Anthropic, the Northern District of California ruled that Anthropic's use of lawfully purchased books to train its large language model (LLM) constituted fair use. Judge William Alsup emphasised the transformative nature of AI, calling it one of the "most transformative uses" imaginable. However, he denied fair use protection for training conducted on pirated books, finding such use "inherently infringing."

In a related case, Kadrey v. Meta, Judge Vince Chhabria also sided with Meta, holding that training on books downloaded from shadow libraries was transformative. But he diverged by highlighting that the fourth fair use factor—market harm—was the most important. Meta prevailed because the authors failed to show a substantial market impact from the AI-generated outputs.

In contrast, the District of Delaware, in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS, ruled that training a non-generative AI tool using Westlaw headnotes was not protected by fair use. Judge Stephanos Bibas found ROSS’s tool directly competed with Westlaw and failed the transformative use test.