Main

And that’s a wrap on the inaugural edition of the SpicyIP Summer School! After a dynamic week packed with discussions on IP law and valuable life lessons, the first-ever SpicyIP Summer School concludes on a high note. Last week also featured a two-part post delving into the new performance metrics recently adopted by the Patent Office.

First Ed. of the SpicyIP Summer School Wraps up!

After a rigorous week of intense sessions on Pharma and creativity, the first edition of the SpicyIP Summer School concluded successfully.

[Part I] – New Performance metrics might be in place in the IPO!

A new performance metric might be in town. As per a new Office Order, the IPO has brought in a new Office Order that comprehensively revamps the performance metrics as they apply to Examiners and Controllers and how it impacts the issuance of reasoned orders. Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan explains this new development in a two-part post.

[Part II] – New Performance metrics might be in place in the IPO!

Continuing his discussion from the previous post, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan in the second part discusses the difficulty of concretely identifying what constitutes a reasoned order and argues for the need for a reasonableness checklist to concretely measure and ensure reasoned orders are issued. The post also discusses the possible impact of the new performance metrics on Pre-Grant oppositions.

The Hershey Company vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 1 May, 2025 (Delhi High Court)

The present suit is based on infringement of Plaintiff’s trade mark. An order for permanent/perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing upon Plaintiff’s exclusive right was given. The injunction restrained the Defendants from passing off and misrepresenting their association with the Plaintiff. Defendant 2 was ordered to not allow any third-party not related to the Plaintiff to register in the Plaintiff’s domain name. Written submissions required to be filed by the Defendants within thirty days from receipt of summons. Till next date Defendant No. 1 and 10 to 12 and all acting through them are restrained from using and reproducing the plaintiff’s name and mark or any other identical mark.

Dr. Ena Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 26 June, 2025 (Himachal Pradesh High Court)

The present suit is based on unauthorised use of X-ray image, surgery image and intraoperative image and research material by Ena Sharma in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International. The consent of informant was not obtained before using the photographs and research material in the second article, infringing her copyright in the first article. When both the articles were compared it was evident that the images were reproduced in the second article infringing on the copyright. It was also held that an informant also has the right to file a complaint. Under Copyright laws, an informant or a third person can also complaint against an infringement. The petition was disposed on merits of the case.

Duroply Industries Limited And Anr vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited on 25 June, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)

The present suit is based on infringement of Plaintiff’s mark ‘Duro’. The defendants were using deceptively similar mark. The plaintiff had been using the mark ‘DUROPLY’ for decades creating goodwill, reputation and familiarity in the market. The defendant used the mark ‘DURO’ which is a general common term but since the Plaintiff was using the mark since decades, it has acquired secondary meaning and he must enjoy the privilege of it. The court held that the defendants by using a similar mark are trying to ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff created over decades. The defendants were restrained from using the mark ‘DURO TOUCH’ or ‘DURO’ or any other mark identical to the registered ‘DURO’ marks.

Thanks Riddhi for the case summaries!