Recent 505 (b) (2) filings and Trademark case Mandeep Singh Vs Shabir Momin: Instant Bollywood
Contents
Recent 505 (b) (2) filings General information
Almost 85% of overcharged amount claimed by NPPA yet to be recovered
CNIPA- The Added Value of Patent-Intensive Industries Nationwide in 2024 was 18,038.1 Billion RMB, Accounting for 13.38% of GDP
Intellectual Property
Mandeep Singh Vs Shabir Momin: Instant Bollywood
Recent 505 (b) (2) filings
We follow 505 (b) (2) filings. Generally, 505(b)(2) NDAs relate to changes compared to previously approved drugs, such as indication, active ingredient, fixed-combination, dosage form, route of administration, dosing regimen, strength, and formulation (not approvable under section 505(j)). More details 505 (b) (2) FDA approvals can be found here. This month, some of the 505 (b) (2) applications filed by the Brand companies are for marketing differentiated dosage and dosage forms, sometimes for different patient populations. The details of December 2025, 505 (b) (2) filings are as follows:
General information
Almost 85% of overcharged amount claimed by NPPA yet to be recovered
India's drug price monitoring and enforcing authority, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), has almost 85 per cent of the amount it demanded from the pharma industry on alleged overcharging of drug prices remaining pending for recovery till September 30, 2025, owing to various reasons including companies challenging the claim in the Court of Law. News here
CNIPA- The Added Value of Patent-Intensive Industries Nationwide in 2024 was 18,038.1 Billion RMB, Accounting for 13.38% of GDP
According to calculations, the added value of patent-intensive industries in China reached 18,038.1 billion RMB in 2024, accounting for 13.38% of GDP, an increase of 0.34 percentage points over the previous year. In terms of internal composition, the new equipment manufacturing industry is the largest, with an added value of 5,137.7 billion RMB, accounting for 28.5% of the added value of patent-intensive industries; followed by the information and communication technology service industry, with an added value of 4,370.9 billion RMB, accounting for 24.2%; and then the information and communication technology manufacturing industry, with an added value of 3,588.5 billion RMB, accounting for 19.9%. News here
Intellectual Property
Mandeep Singh Vs Shabir Momin: Instant Bollywood
At the end of the year, I always find it difficult to find good patent cases that adequately discuss both law and science. I generally search for cases with inventive step discussions to engage scientists. This week, let us understand one trademark case to see how the Court does not like anything being kept hidden from it. This write-up concerns the order of the High Court of Delhi dated December 11, 2025, in four petitions filed by Mandeep Singh (the Petitioner) against Shabir Momin (Respondent No. 1) and the Registrar of Trademarks (Respondent No. 2). The case concerns the trademark "Instant Bollywood" and seeks the cancellation and rectification of multiple registrations standing in the name of Respondent No. 1.
- The brand commenced operations in 2012 as "Insta Bollywood" before rebranding.
- The current device mark has been in use since 2016.
- In 2019, the Petitioner entered into a management agreement with One Digital Entertainment Pte. Ltd. (ODE), managed by Shabir Momin.
- The Petitioner terminated this agreement in August 2025 due to breaches.
- Following the termination, the Petitioner discovered that Momin had clandestinely registered the trademarks in his personal name, allegedly without the Petitioner’s knowledge.
The Petitioner argues that even under the 2019 agreement, ODE was only entitled to a 50% joint ownership stake, and Momin had no right to register the marks in his personal capacity. Impleadment of Times Internet Inc. During the proceedings, Times Internet Inc. sought to be impleaded as a party (Respondent No. 3). Their counsel revealed that Respondent No. 1 Shabir Momin assigned the rights to the subject trademarks to Times Internet Inc. via an agreement dated October 24, 2025. Despite the Petitioner’s reservations, the Court found that Times Internet Inc. was a "proper and necessary party" because correspondence from October and November 2025 showed the Petitioner was aware of the asserted transfer of rights. Suppression of Facts and Court Sanctions A significant portion of the order addresses non-disclosure by the Petitioner, Mandeep Singh. Respondent No. 3 provided evidence indicating that the Petitioner was aware of the trademark registrations as early as September 2022, contradicting his claim that he only learned of them in August 2025. The Court observed that:
- The Petitioner, Mandeep Singh, failed to disclose the legal notices and agreements exchanged with Respondent No. 3, Times Internet Inc.
- This non-disclosure amounted to suppression of material facts.
- While the Court declined to dismiss the injunction application—noting that the Petitioner's 50% right was prima facie acknowledged in the 2019 agreement—it imposed a heavy penalty.
- The Petitioner, Mandeep Singh, was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 5 lakhs in each of the four petitions (Totalling Rs. 20 lakhs) to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.
Interim Directions and Next Steps The Court issued the following interim orders:
- Status Quo: Respondents Shabir Momin and Times Internet Inc must maintain the status quo regarding the October 2025 assignment until the interim applications are disposed of.
- Third-Party Interests: Respondents No. 1 and 3 are prohibited from creating any further third-party interests in the trademarks.
- Procedural Deadlines: The Petitioner was granted 30 days to file additional documents and two weeks to file an amended memo of parties. Respondents must file their replies within four weeks.
The matter is scheduled to appear before the Joint Registrar on February 12, 2026, and before the Court on May 6, 2026. Decision here
