Copyrights and Trademarks Quarterly Milestones (October-December 2025)

The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the mandatory requirement for pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, can be waived in cases where the plaintiff is seeking urgent relief, especially in Intellectual Property (IP) matters involving continuing infringement of rights.¹

The Court held that aggrieved proprietors, particularly trademark owners, may directly approach the court seeking injunctive relief against ongoing infringement, without necessarily undertaking pre-suit mediation, especially where such infringement results in public deception and dilution of proprietary rights. The Court further observed that urgency must be assessed in the context of the ongoing nature of harm, and that mere delay in approaching the court does not, by itself, defeat a claim for urgent interim relief where infringement is continuing.

This is a welcome reiteration by the Supreme Court, as pre-litigation mediation in certain cases may operate as an advance notice to the infringer, potentially undermining the effectiveness of enforcement, particularly where there is a risk of concealment or destruction of infringing evidence. The Court emphasised that procedural requirements under Section 12A cannot be permitted to operate as a shield for infringers to continue unlawful acts under the guise of statutory compliance.

In a landmark development, the Indian Trade Marks Registry has accepted India’s first smell (olfactory) trademark, in favour of Sumitomo Chemical Co. Limited, for a scent associated with synthetic rubber used in tyres. This marks the first instance in India where a scent mark has crossed the examination stage, signalling a notable development in the Registry’s treatment of non-traditional trademarks.

Significantly, during examination, the Trade Marks Registry appointed an amicus curiae, who submitted a technical framework setting out factors for representing a scent graphically, including objective parameters capable of identifying and distinguishing the smell with certainty. Relying on this structured approach, the Registry observed that the scent met the statutory requirement of graphical representation, and accordingly, granted acceptance to the application.

While registration is still subject to opposition, this acceptance opens an important pathway for brand owners to explore olfactory trademarks in India, subject to stringent evidentiary and technical thresholds.

The Bombay High Court held that the situs of a trademark, being an intangible asset, follows the location of its owner.

In Duphar Interfran Ltd. v State of Maharashtra,² the Court examined whether the outbound assignment of the well-known trademark “Crocin” by an Indian company to a UK-based entity constituted a local sale taxable in Maharashtra, or a sale in the course of export outside India. The Court rejected the State’s argument that registration of the trademark in India fixed its situs, clarifying that registration does not determine ownership or location of an intangible asset. Instead, the Court held that upon assignment, the situs of the trademark shifted to the UK, following the location of the assignee as its new owner. This ruling provides important clarity on the treatment of cross-border assignments of trademarks and likely other forms of IP.

The Delhi High Court refused to return the plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited against Artura Pharmaceuticals Private Limited,³ holding that the presence of a “Contact Us” page and online listings targeting consumers can be sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction at the threshold stage. The ruling clarifies that brand owners may approach courts in jurisdictions where consumers are targeted through online activity to pursue infringement actions. This is particularly useful given that digital platforms often target metropolitan markets such as Delhi, Mumbai, and Chennai, where specialised IP benches and designated IP judges are typically available.

Applying the principles laid down in Banyan Tree,⁴ the Court clarified that jurisdiction in internet-based trademark disputes does not turn solely on proof of completed sales, but on whether the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the forum by targeting consumers within the jurisdiction. The Court held that inviting users to “write to us” for services, making product brochures available for download, and listing products on third-party platforms designed to facilitate trade could reasonably be construed as commercial targeting of Delhi-based consumers, giving rise to a part of the cause of action in Delhi.

The Delhi High Court delivered a landmark ruling in a suit filed by Dabur India Limited, addressing large-scale domain-name fraud and impersonation of well-known trademarks through deceptive domain name registrations.⁵ The Court noted that such fraudulent domains are routinely used to mislead consumers, divert payments, and impersonate brand owners, often through registrars and intermediaries with no physical presence in India.

Recognising the systemic nature of the abuse, the Court issued a series of directions aimed at ensuring effective enforcement, including obligations on domain registrars, payment intermediaries, and authorities to disable fraudulent domains and preserve related records. Key directions issued by the Delhi High Court include:

The judgment is significant as it moves beyond case-specific relief and lays down a framework to deal with repeat and organised misuse of trademarks in the digital ecosystem, strengthening remedies available to brand owners facing online fraud.