Newsletter - IPAY Attention : Issue No. 31 - 07/2025

CALCUTTA HC OVERTURNS PATENT REJECTION HIGHLIGHTING VALIDITY OF GPA In This Issue Newsletter Issue 31 July 2025 I P AY ATTENTION Gateway to IP World INDIA'S DRAFT CRI GUIDELINES 2.0 (2025): A SHARPER BLUEPRINT FOR PATENTABILITY IN THE AGE OF AI IP SNIPPETS

I P AY ATTENTION Gateway to IP World 1 INDIA'S DRAFT CRI GUIDELINES 2.0 (2025): A SHARPER BLUEPRINT FOR PATENTABILITY IN THE AGE OF AI effect. What's improved is the depth of examples provided to illustrate what this means in real terms - such as improved signal processing, real-time robotic control, and enhanced cybersecurity protocols. 2. Judicial Precedents Anchored into the Text The revised guidelines ground the eligibility analysis in Indian case law, including Ferid Allani, Microsoft Technology Licensing, and OpenTV. This move provides much-needed alignment between examination standards and judicial reasoning, enhancing both predictability and legitimacy. 3. Structured Examination: “Seven Stambhas” & Five-Step Tests To assess novelty, the guidelines adopt the “Seven Stambhas” approach from Ericsson v. Lava. For inventive step, they reaffirm the classic five-step analysis rooted in Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence. Annexure I: The New Illustrative Examples Perhaps the most visible improvement in CRI 2.0 is the inclusion of Annexure I, which provides over 20 examples - both patent- eligible and non-eligible. These cover AI-based systems, blockchain innovations, and exclusions such as data sorting methods or business automation tools lacking technical novelty. Disclosure Requirements: Higher but Clearer Bar The guidelines reinforce the need for sufficiency of disclosure, especially for inventions in AI, blockchain, and quantum systems. While the bar is high, the intent is to ensure enablement - a welcome move for serious innovators and a guardrail against overbroad or speculative claims. Issued on June 26, 2025, the Indian Patent Office's revised Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) marks a significant step forward in shaping a more predictable and robust framework for software and AI-related patents in India. With public consultation open until July 7, 2025, stakeholders now have an opportunity to help shape a document that will directly impact the way emerging technologies - ranging from AI and blockchain to quantum systems - are evaluated for patent protection. From Draft to Draft 2.0: Why the Update Matters T h i s r e v i s e d v e r s i o n o f t h e guidelines—referred to informally as CRI Guidelines 2.0—follows an earlier draft published in March 2025. The update was prompted by extensive feedback from industry, academia, and legal professionals, all of whom raised concerns around clarity, applicability to emerging technologies, and inconsistency in examination practice. Version 2.0 retains the spirit of the original but improves upon it with: · Expanded illustrative examples, especially for AI and cryptography, · Better integration of judicial precedent, and · A more structured approach to assessing novelty, inventive step, and technical effect. What Has Changed: Key Highlights from CRI 2.0 1. Emphasis on Technical Effect and Contribution The core test for patent eligibility remains unchanged: computer-related inventions must produce a technical Business Methods: The Line Remains Firm Despite advances in tech integration, the guidelines reiterate that business methods “per se” remain excluded under Section 3(k), regardless of any technical implementation. Strengths and Gaps: A Balanced Take - By Divyendu Verma

I P AY ATTENTION Gateway to IP World 2 The guidelines 2.0 mark a considerable improvement in both structure and substance. However, like any evolving regulatory instrument, it presents a mix of strengths and unresolved gaps that merit close attention. KEY STRENGTHS: 1. Case Law-Backed Structure Enhances Trust One of the most commendable aspects of the revised guidelines is the deliberate anchoring of examination standards in Indian judicial precedents. By explicitly referencing landmark decisions such as Ferid Allani v. Union of India and Ericsson v. Lava , the Patent Office has aligned its internal examination protocols with established jurisprudence. This move strengthens legal certainty for applicants, reduces unpredictability in prosecution, and demonstrates that examination is not being conducted in a policy vacuum but within a legitimate judicial framework. 2. Use of Realistic, Sector-Specific Examples Annexure I provides over 20 illustrative examples, including both patent-eligible and non-eligible inventions. These examples span: · AI-based image processing tools · Consensus mechanisms in blockchain · Non-patentable business rule automation methods For years, the absence of contextually grounded examples has been a sticking point for practitioners. This annexure helps bridge the gap between abstract legal standards and real- world applications, especially for early-stage startups and academic inventors who may not be familiar with nuanced patent drafting. 3. Greater Clarity on AI and Cryptographic Disclosures The guidelines now articulate a clearer expectation regarding technical disclosure for inventions involving: · Machine learning and deep learning models (e.g., neural network architecture, training datasets, loss functions), · Blockchain implementations (e.g., proof-of-work/proof- of-stake algorithms, cryptographic protocols), · Quantum algorithms and hardware interaction. This raises the bar for claim enablement and discourages speculative filings that lack substantive technical content, thereby improving the overall quality of applications and strengthening enforceability of granted patents . REMAINING GAPS AND AREAS OF CONCERN: 1. Blurring of Key Technical Terms The draft continues to use the terms “technical effect”, Unlike jurisdictions like the EPO that sometimes consider quantifiable improvements (e.g., X% increase in processing efficiency), the Indian draft leaves it to examiner discretion, which can result in inconsistent grant/rejection decisions across different technology centers or even within the same art unit. This gap is especially problematic in AI, where improvements are probabilistic or stochastic in nature and difficult to express deterministically. 3. High Risk of Examiner Subjectivity Because the final determination of whether an invention has a “technical effect” or is merely a software implementation depends heavily on examiner judgment, the lack of rigid metrics or checklists can lead to: · Varied examination outcomes for similar claims, · Increased burden on applicants to file extensive responses or appeals, · Reduced confidence in the process, especially for first-time filers or international applicants unfamiliar with Indian practice. To mitigate this, the guidelines could benefit from an appendix that lists checkable criteria or decision trees, providing examiners with more consistent tools for analysis. What Should Innovators Do? While the Draft CRI Guidelines 2.0 are a leap forward, the long- term success of their implementation will hinge on refining definitions, clarifying conceptual overlaps, and providing both quantitative and procedural guidance to reduce examiner variability. Stakeholders should view this as an opportunity to contribute to a more predictable and innovation-aligned IP environment in India. Feedback Deadline: July 7, 2025 Email to: [email protected] and [email protected] Subject Line: “Comments on Revised Draft CRI Guidelines 2025 - Version 2.0” “technical contribution”, and “further technical effect” without clearly defining their boundaries or relationships. While these terms are borrowed from European and Indian precedents, their overlapping use within the same document creates ambiguity. For instance, is a “technical contribution” a subset of “technical effect” or an independent criterion? Should they be assessed cumulatively or sequentially? Without internal consistency, the door remains open to subjective interpretation. 2. Lack of Objective Standards for “Technical Effect” The guidelines list acceptable “technical effects” (e.g., enhanced security, reduced latency, improved hardware performance), but they do not lay down any measurable benchmarks.

I P AY ATTENTION Gateway to IP World 3 CALCUTTA HC OVERTURNS PATENT REJECTION HIGHLIGHTING VALIDITY OF GPA n the present case the Calcutta High Court has passed an I order in the matter of HUAWEI TECHONOLOGIES CO. LTD. (Appellants) vs. THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADEMARK AND ANR. (Respondent), setting aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent rejecting the patent application related to 'A communication method and a device to reduce power consumption of a terminal in a paging process', solely on the ground of invalidity of the General Power of Attorney (GPA). BACKGROUND: The Appellant had filed an Indian patent application no. 202237060506 on October 22, 2022. The Appellant has made submissions against the formal as well as technical objections that were raised by the Respondent in the FER. Initially, there were no objections regarding any defect in General Power of Attorney (GPA) in the First Examination Report (FER), it was only raised during the issuance of hearing notice. However, the Appellant filed the written submission covering technical as well as formal issues that were addressed or objected in the hearing notice. Yet the Respondent ended up passing a 40 pages lengthy impugned order rejecting the Appellant's patent application for failing to fulfill the formal requirement of submitting the original GPA by placing the reliance on sections 127 and 132 of the Patent Act 1970 read with Rules 126 and 135 of the Patent Rules, 2003. CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT: The Appellant contended the Respondent's illogical and unjustified impugned order by emphasizing that: · The objection regarding GPA was only raised during hearing notice, to which the Appellant had also filed a written s u b m i s s i o n c o ve r i n g a l l t h e a d d r e s s e d i s s u e s . · The Appellant had filed the original GPA in another application and a copy of GPA in the present patent application. · The Respondent's reliance on sections 127 and 132 of the Patent Act, 1970 read with Rules 126 and 132 of the Patent Rules, 2003 was erroneous in the impugned order, the Respondent has purposely avoided the consideration of INTRODUCTION IPDPTA/6/2025 Decided on: April 22, 2025 HUAWEI TECHONOLOGIES CO. LTD. (Appellants) vs. THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADEMARK AND ANR. (Respondent) - By Sahana Mabian Conclusion: A Welcome Update, with Work Left to Do The June 2025 update to the CRI Guidelines is a commendable and forward-thinking document. It shows the Indian Patent Office's responsiveness to community feedback and its intent to keep pace with disruptive technologies. The hope now is that the feedback submitted will help convert this draft into a practical, innovation-forward instrument that strikes the right balance between patent exclusivity and public clarity. If you would like help drafting your feedback or strategizing your CRI filings in light of the new draft, our team would be happy to assist. Footnotes 1. Comments on Revised CRI Guidelines 2025 can be submitted until July 7, 2025. 2. Reference case laws include Ferid Allani, Microsoft Technology Licensing, Ericsson v. Lava, and others. 3. Seven Stambhas refer to the claim structure analysis method recognized by Delhi High Court in Ericsson vs Lava. 4. For more details, visit: https://ipindia.gov.in/Home/NewsDetail/42

I P AY ATTENTION Gateway to IP World 4 CONCLUSION: Perusing through all the above matters, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court acknowledged the lack of opportunity given to the Appellant for addressing the objection which was formal in nature on which the patent has been refused and set aside the impugned order. The Respondent cannot reject patent application solely on the ground invalidity of GPA or any other formal requirements, without even considering the technicality and inventiveness of the patent application. This judgment sets a valuable precedent for future cases where patent applications are refused solely on formal grounds, without assessing their technical merit. It underscores the importance of substantive evaluation and will help avoid unnecessary loss of patent term and costs incurred due to procedurally unjust decisions. Departmental Circular No. 12 of 2009. As per the Departmental Circular No. 12 of 2009 issued by the Indian Patent Office on June 2009, if the original GPA is already filed with another patent application, then the self- attested copy of the GPA by the patent agent or the legal practitioner can also be submitted while filing the subsequent patent applications. · The Respondent had also filed a complaint against another Controller for accepting the GPAs, which indicates to be a pre-mediated strategy adopted by the Respondent for procuring the impugned order. COURT'S ANALYSIS: The Calcutta High Court observed the following matter and analyzed that the Respondent has failed to acknowledge the technicality of the Appellant's patent application and solely considered the invalidity of the GPA while passing the impugned order. The Respondent also failed to provide an opportunity to the Appellant for curing the formal defect and concluded by passing the impugned order, violating the principle of natural justice. The Hon'ble Court states that “the impugned order is a wasteful exercise of time, expense and money and serves no purpose whatsoever”. The Respondent failed to acknowledge that the similar copies of GPA have been previously filed in many other applications which were ultimately allowed as the Departmental Circular No. 12 of 2009 permits and allows such practice. None of Section 127 or 135 of the Act or Rule 135 or 126 portrays refusal of the patent application under this ground alone, it only provides suspension of action on pending issue.

I P AY ATTENTION Gateway to IP World 5 The appellant filed an appeal against an i m p u g n e d o r d e r p a s s e d b y t h e respondent, rejecting the appellant's patent application under the ground of Section 2(i)(j) and 2(i)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the rejection was unjustifiable as the respondent's impugned order failed to provide any reasons and merely reproduced the hearing notice without addressing the detailed submissions and supporting documents. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court noted that the impugned order was a verbatim reproduction of the hearing notice and lacked consideration of the reasoning submitted by the appellant. The Hon'ble Court reiterated that judgments must reflect the decision-making process and not merely conclusions. The Hon'ble Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, with a direction to pass a reasoned order after granting the appellant a proper opportunity of hearing. IP SNIPPETS: SHINDENGEN ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO LTD (Appellant) vs ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ORS (Respondent) CASE NO.: IPDPTA/14/2024 IA NO: GA-COM/2/2024 DECIDED ON: 13th June 2025 PATENT CASES: CASE NO.: IPDPTA/22/2023 DECIDED ON: 12th June, 2025 NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD. (Appellant) vs THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR. (Respondents) CASE NO.: IPDAID/27/2024 DECIDED ON: 12th June, 2025 I n t h e p re s e n t a p p e a l t h e appellant has challenged the respondent for refusing the appellants patent application for non-patentability under sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act 1970. The appellant argued that the respondent failed to consider Written Notes of Submissions which highlighted the therapeutic effect of CDDO-Me on human patients who suffered from chronic kidney disease. The appellant further stated that the respondent had passed the impugned order without providing proper reasoning for non-acceptance of the research data submitted for establishing patentability. The respondent also failed to acknowledge the technical and scientific evidence submitted by the appellant. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court observed the following matter that the respondent has failed to provide proper reasoning for rejecting the patent application. The Hon'ble Court stated that “Reasons are an integral part of any order which reflect the views of the decision maker”. The Hon'ble Court concluded by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration. REATA PHARMACEUTICALS INC (OA/2/2018/PT/KOL) (Appellant) vs DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGN (Respondents) The appellant has filed an appeal against the respondent challenging the impugned order rejecting the appellant's patent application under the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant's patent application discloses a method to support a driver by controlling a vehicle when it reaches a predetermined lateral position and moving the vehicle towards the center of the lane. The respondent cited two prior art alleging lack of inventiveness. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court observed that the respondent passed the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order failed to provide any reasoning as to why the appellant's patent application lacks inventive step. The Hon'ble Court stated that “..even quasi administrative authorities are bound to give reasons in their orders”. The Hon'ble Court concluded by setting aside the impugned order due to lack of reasoning in the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller to reconsider the appellant' s patent application. CASE NO.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 452/2022 DECIDED ON: 27th May, 2025 ZERIA PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD. (Appellant) vs THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS (Respondents) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the respondent for rejecting the appellant's divisional patent application under the ground of lack of inventiveness under section 2(1)(ja) and section 3(d) for non-patentability. The appellant contended that the respondent has failed to consider the relevant inventiveness

I P AY ATTENTION Gateway to IP World 6 of the claimed invention and has erroneously relied on the cited prior arts. The appellant further contended that the respondent did not even consider an expert affidavit submitted by them during the prosecution stage affirming inventiveness of the patent application. The appellant also noted the respondent's error while dealing with section 3(d) as the submitted experimental data demonstrates the superiority of the claimed invention over the compounds as disclosed in the prior arts. The respondent held support of the prior art and countered that the appellant is attempting for mere extension of protection for known process intermediates, which is not permissible and also there is no enhanced efficacy. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court analyzed that the comparative data provided by the appellant failed to demonstrate the enhancement of the “therapeutic efficacy” in the claimed compound under the patent application, therefore the appellant's patent application cannot be patentable under section 3(d). Further, the Hon'ble Court stated that the respondent has rightfully objected as per section 2(1)(ja) and cited the prior art D2, as it rightfully discloses a compound sufficient enough to be obvious for a PSITA to provide alternative intermediates. The Hon'ble Court concluded by refusing the present appeal and upheld the respondent's decisions. The petitioner filed a petition against the Respondents challenging the order dated 31st October 2023, which refused to include the trademark "TikTok" in the list of well- known marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017, citing the app's ban in India over national security concerns. The petitioner argued that the order lacked reasoning, cited irrelevant legal provisions, and ignored substantial evidence of TikTok's global reputation, claiming the ban was temporary. On the other hand, the respondent defended the order, arguing that the ban imposed by the Government of India was a relevant factor under Section 11(6), even though not specifically listed, and that the Registrar had the discretion to consider such issues when determining inclusion in the well-known marks list. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that while the impugned order did not refer to Sections 11(6)–(9) explicitly, the Registrar was empowered to consider "any relevant fact" under Section 11(6). The Hon'ble High Court emphasized TIKTOK LIMITED (Petitioner) vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS MUMBAI & ANR. (Respondents) CASE NO.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 10 of 2024 DECIDED ON: 10th June 2025 TRADEMARK CASES that these constitutional and legal factors cannot be disregarded, even if the mark is otherwise registered. The petition was dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of the Assistant Registrar, ruling that the refusal to include TikTok in the list of well-known marks was justified in view of the continuing government ban and related national interest concerns. JAY BABA BAKRESWAR RICE MILL PRIVATE LIMITED (Petitioner) vs DEEPAK KUMAR BARNWAL (Respondent) CASE NO.: IP-COM/59/2024 [OLD NO CS/148/2023] DECIDED ON: 09th June 2025 The petitioner is engaged in the business of dealing with rice and allied products under the trade mark “Swastik Brand”, it was alleged that the rice sold by the petitioner is of premium and high quality. The petitioner applied for the registration of the trademark “Swastik Brand” having a distinctive color scheme and getup claiming user since 31st July 1998. In June 2023, the petitioner came across the respondent's rice being sold under “Swastik Brand” with a deceptively similar packaging, font, placement of elements and also the term “premium quality silky sortex”. The petitioner sought to have a summary judgement under Order XIIIA of CPC 1908. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court discovered substantive material information being suppressed by the petitioner, it appeared that the registration certificate of the petitioner contained a disclaimer stating that the petitioner does not have exclusive rights over the device mark “Swastik” and all other descriptive matter. The suit was dismissed on the grounds of material concealment of substantive information by the petitioner. The suit was scheduled to appear under “Case Management Hearing of Suit” on 24th June 2025. Plaintiff the registered owner and prior user of the trademark "NEUD" , filed a suit against Defendants seeking protection against the use of the allegedly deceptively similar mark "NEUDE" in relation to cosmetics and related products. Plaintiff claimed prior adoption, continuous use, and registration of the mark "NEUD" in Classes 3 and 5 asserted WET AND DRY PERSONAL CARE PVT LTD (Plaintiff) vs i) WET AND DRY PERSONAL CARE PVT LTD, ii) M/S WUNDERRHOMMZ INC (Defendants) CASE NO.: CS(COMM)384/2025 DECIDED ON: 09th June 2025

I P AY ATTENTION Gateway to IP World 7 deceptive similarity with "NEUDE" submitted sales and advertising records since 2017 alleged likelihood of confusion. Defendant argued concurrent registration of "NEUDE" i n Classes 3, 35, and 42 since 2022, claimed no similarity, invoked Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act asserting equal rights of registered users alleged suppression of facts and failure to comply with pre-litigation mediation. The Hon'ble District Court held that while Section 28(3) grants concurrent rights to registered proprietors, it does not bar a passing off action. The Hon'ble Court emphasized that even a single instance of prior use, with intent to continue, suffices to assert common law rights. The marks “NEUD” and “NEUDE” were held to be phonetically and visually similar, and the defendant's use was likely to cause confusion. Importantly, the Hon'ble Court reaffirmed that common law rights of a prior user prevail over statutory registration in passing off cases. M/S. L'OREAL S.A. (Plaintiff) vs RIDDHI GOPALBHAI DONDA (Defendant) CASE NO.: CS (Comm) No. 454/24 DECIDED ON: 02nd June 2025 The plaintiff, filed a suit under the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act against defendant, alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practices concerning its well- known trademark GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's product AMELIYA BRIGHT COMPLETE Vitamin C Booster Face Serum was deceptively similar in name, packaging, colour scheme, shape, and trade dress, thereby infringing upon its intellectual property and misleading consumers. Plaintiff asserted proprietary rights in the trademark and trade dress of GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE, including its colour scheme (white, orange, black, golden), packaging, label artwork, and celebrity endorsements. Claimed defendant copied essential elements and unlawfully benefitted from Garnier's goodwill. Defendant despite being served, remained ex-parte and failed to file a written statement or contest the case. The Hon'ble District Court held that the defendant had clearly copied essential features of the plaintiff's product, including the trade dress, label layout, artwork, packaging, and overall get-up, leading to confusion among the public. The visual similarity was such that even a discerning consumer could be misled. The Hon'ble Court noted the defendant's conduct constituted trademark and copyright infringement, as well as passing off and unfair trade practices. The suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff with Hon'ble Court permanently restraining the defendant from using the infringing trademark, trade dress, packaging, and related marks in any physical or online marketplace. JAY BABA BAKRESWAR RICE MILL PRIVATE LIMITED (Appellant) vs LUNIA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS (Respondents) CASE NO.: FAO No. 8/2025 With I.A.(Civil) No.325/2025 and I.A.(Civil) No. 325/2025 DECIDED ON: 10th June 2025 COPYRIGHT CASES Appellant filed an appeal against Respondents challenging an order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Trial Court in Guwahati, which had granted an ex parte temporary injunction restraining the appellant from infringing respondents copyright in its “ARHAM” rice packaging design. Respondents claimed that appellants were using deceptively similar packaging that misled consumers and harmed their goodwill. Respondents claimed copyright in the “ARHAM” label with unique trade dress and colour schemes, alleging that appellant was copying these elements, including the “100% Pure” wording, Swastik device, and layout. Appellant argued no infringement; claimed “ARHAM” is a common term, the packaging elements are generic, and both companies operate from Kolkata, so suit in Guwahati was forum shopping; also cited non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court upheld the Trial Court's discretion, holding that Respondent demonstrated a strong prima facie case, clear trade dress similarity, and urgent need for protection due to reputational harm from allegedly inferior-quality lookalike products. The Hon'ble Court emphasized that ex parte injunctions are justified in exceptional circumstances and found no arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion in the lower court's order. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal upheld the temporary injunction against Appellant and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for final disposal of the injunction application. STAR INDIA PVT LTD (Plaintiff) vs IPTV SMARTER PRO & ORS. (Defendants) CASE NO.: CS(COMM) 108/2025 DECIDED ON: 29th May 2025 Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendants and several other rogue websites and mobile applications for the unauthorized streaming and broadcasting of its exclusive content, including high-value sporting

I P AY ATTENTION Gateway to IP World 8 events like the Indian Premier League 2025 and the England Tour of India. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its copyright and broadcast reproduction rights. Plaintiff asserted that rogue websites and mobile apps were deliberately broadcasting copyrighted content without authorization and that procedural delays in seeking relief would cause irreparable harm, especially with time-sensitive live events. Requested real-time blocking of infringing platforms. Defendant No. 7 opposed the application, contending that the reliefs sought went beyond the scope of the main suit. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court recognized that infringers rapidly launch new variants of rogue websites and apps, rendering traditional legal remedies ineffective and held that in today's digital landscape, real-time relief is essential to prevent the plaintiff's rights from being rendered meaningless. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court innovatively extended protection to not only rogue websites but also rogue mobile applications, calling the granted relief a “superlative injunction” - an advanced form of a dynamic+ injunction that allows swift and ongoing protection regardless of the mode of infringement. SADHGURU JAGADISH VASUDEV & ANR. (Plaintiffs) vs. IGOR ISAKOV & ORS. (Defendants) CASE NO.: CS(COMM) 578/2025 DECIDED ON: 30.05.2025 PERSONALITY RIGHTS CASES The plaintiff (Sadhguru & Isha Foundation, established by Sadhguru) who is a world-renowned spiritual leader, sued a group of rogue websites and social media accounts (Defendants�1–41), their service providers (Defendants� 42–45), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministr y of Electronics & IT (MEITY) (Defendants� 46–47), and unknown John Does (Defendant� 48). They alleged that, beginning in December� 2024 the defendants started using AI tools to create deepfakes, morphed videos, doctored speeches and misleading visuals, falsely portraying the plaintiff in promotional content It was alleged that the manipulated media was used to run financial scams and promote fake services under the guise of motivational speech. thereby infringing his personality rights, perpetuating scams, and causing irreparable damage to his reputation. They argued such misuse exploited Sadhguru's unique persona for commercial gain and deceived the public into scams. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of personality-rights infringement, that absence of such relief would cause irreparable harm. Recognising the internet's “hydra-headed” nature where blocked sites reappear under new URLs, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ordered a “dynamic+” injunction, enabling real-time takedown and domain-blocking orders to keep pace with evolving mirror sites and deep-fake uploads. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court issued notice in Sadhguru's suit and listed the matter for further hearing on October 14.

Disclaimer: This publication is intended to provide information to clients on recent developments in IPR industry. The material contained in this publication has been gathered by the lawyers at DuxLegis for informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. Specifically, the articles or quotes in this newsletter are not legal opinions and readers should not act on the basis of these articles or quotes without consulting a lawyer who could provide analysis and advice on a specific matter. DuxLegis Attorneys is a partnership law firm in India. 902, Kamdhenu Commerz, Sector - 14, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai - 410210. MH, INDIA [email protected] w w w . d u x l e g i s . c o m This Newsletter is published by DuxLegis Attorneys from 902,Kamdhenu Commerz, Sector 14, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra,India on 5th July, 2025. 2024-25 DUXLEGIS C Editorial Board +91 22 46083609 / +91 83739 80620 Editor Divyendu Verma Vinod Chand Designer Nilesh B. Content Editor Sub - Editor Priti More