My Lord, ‘Mersal’ Infringed ‘Moondru Mugam’ Copyright? R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118 held, in order to determine whether there is substantial copying, spectator or viewer, after reading or viewing both works in question, should leave with the unmistakable impression: subsequent work is a copy of original. One of the challenges […]Read more "The Case of Three Faces"
‘KANGARO’ is being used by Plaintiffs and Defendants in respect of manufacture of various stationery products, staplers, hole punchers and other related goods. Disputes arose sometime in 1992. Since then, parties have been at loggerheads. Both parties have filed several trademark applications, as well as opposition proceedings, in various countries. We feel, it is just […]Read more "Kangaro"
Since 2019, Courts where IPR cases are being listed in Delhi: District Judges/ADJs (Non-Commercial) for suits valued below Rs. 3 Lakhs; District Judges/ADJs (Commercial) for suits valued Between Rs. 3 Lakhs till Rs. 2 Crores; Commercial Division of High Court (Original Jurisdiction) for suits above Rs. 2 Crores. Can District Judges (Commercial) entertain IPR suits […]Read more "[Intellectual] Forum Shopping III"
For the offence under Section 63 of The Copyright Act, 1957 the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 6 months but which may extend to 3 years and with fine. Therefore, the maximum punishment which can be imposed would be 3 years. In view of consideration of Part III, First Schedule, CrPC – if […]Read more "Section 63 of The Copyright Act, 1957"
One may refer with advantage to Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines, (1994) 2 SCC 448. SC held: High Court failed to take note, plea of ‘honest and concurrent user’ as stated in Section 12(3) of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 is not a valid defence for infringement of copyright. Afore-extracted finding […]Read more "An Honest Concurrent Use II"
Ld. Counsel appearing for Plaintiffs [Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited and M/s. V.R. Holdings] submits, domain name of Defendants [Guddu Ansari and M/s. Hero Electro] – http://www.heroelectro.in – is almost identical to domain name of Plaintiffs – http://www.heroelectric.in. A comparative table is set out herein below: Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have set up http://www.heroelectro.in […]Read more "Domain Name II"
The British School Society [TBSS] runs The British School, New Delhi [TBS]. ‘The British School’-mark has been adopted by Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society [SGES] in relation to identical services, i.e., educational services, for 4 schools. The domain name of TBS is http://www.british-school.org, registered in 1999. TBS also has social media presence on Facebook, Instagram, et […]Read more "The British School, New Delhi"
According to Snapdeal, by offering for registration, domain names which include ‘Snapdeal’, Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) are facilitating infringement of Snapdeal’s registered mark and are also themselves infringers within meaning of Sections 28 and 29 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999. If domain names are deceptively similar to ‘Snapdeal’, GoDaddy is indulging in infringement of […]Read more "Domain Name I"
It is quite extraordinary, how word mark ‘Ganesh’ was registered without any restriction or limitation. When a mark is registered, Registering Authority may do so without any condition or limitation. Absence of a disclaimer does not always vest an exclusive right over a word mark. In our case, registration of word mark ‘Ganesh’ was without […]Read more "Name of God"
My Lord, Revocation Petition under Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970 is subject to The Limitation Act, 1963? No. Section 2(1)(t) of The Patents Act, 1970 defines a ‘person interested’. Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra, (2014) 15 SCC 360 observed, a person may not be a ‘person interested’ when grant of concerned patent was […]Read more "Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970"
Plaintiff and Defendant manufacture and deal in, inter alia, high-end luxury jewellery. Where a website permits purchase of goods or services, for consideration, every Court having jurisdiction over places from which, by access to website, commercial transactions could be effected and concluded would, prima facie, have jurisdiction to deal with a case of trademark infringement. […]Read more "Serpenti"
Burberry Ltd. filed a suit under Sections 134 and 135 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 55 of The Copyright Act, 1957 for a permanent injunction restraining Aditya Verma from violating proprietary rights. Learned ADJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi dismissed Burberry’s suit. Trial Court has completely misdirected itself in placing undue emphasis […]Read more "Burberry"
Though both parties have addressed this Court at length on merits and have also taken us through voluminous documents, we do not find it necessary to go into those issues. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali as well as Justice A.N. Sen in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 SCC 8 have a […]Read more "5 LAKHS FOR SUPREME COURT"
Plaintiff’s two products – BLENDERS PRIDE, IMPERIAL BLUE – and Defendant’s CASINOS PRIDE belong to same segment i.e., Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and, therefore, cater to same customer base. They are also available from same outlets. But, “one does not blend in a casino, and blenders don‘t play dice.” Arrangement of letters and overall […]Read more "Imperial Blender’s Casino"
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 came into force on 15th September, 2003. When a trade mark is identical with a registered trade mark and goods or services are identical too, Court shall presume it is likely to cause confusion on public. Court has pointed out, essentials of a passing off action cannot be equated […]Read more "An Identical Trademark"
The question had been floating for a while. It was January 1, 2019 when I wondered who amongst then Chief Justices of HCs, if elevated, could be our 51st CJI. January 18, 2019 – we finally received an answer. CJI No. 51 would be Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna who wasn’t ever a Chief Justice of […]Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: Article No. 1101"
Recently, Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh of Delhi High Court in Sulphur Mills Limited v. Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited, [CS(COMM) 1225/2018 & CC(COMM) 9/2019] said, to argue on basis of submissions made before Commissioner of Customs, there is no novelty or inventive step in Indian Patent Number 282429, would lead to an anomalous situation and […]Read more "Red Herrings"
It was claimed in Hamdard National Foundation v. Hussain Dalal, 202 (2013) DLT 291 Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (2013, Dir. Ayan Mukherjee) contains some dialogues which injures goodwill and reputation of ‘Rooh Afza’, a popular concentrated squash. It was admitted, ‘Rooh Afza’ is a well-known trademark. Attention was drawn to Section 29(9) of The Trade […]Read more "Rooh Afza Returns"
The expression ‘copyright’ has to be understood only as is stated in Section 14 and not otherwise. It is an exclusive right, which is negative in nature, being a right to restrict others from doing certain acts. The ownership of copyright in a work is different from the ownership of the physical material in which […]Read more "The Copyright Act, 1957"
If you have incomplete information on how a particular law has progressed, it is very likely your skill before Court would produce, every now and then, a significant margin of error. Eashan Ghosh’s efforts with ‘Imperfect Recollections: The Indian Supreme Court on Trade Mark Law’, (Thomson Reuters, 2020) is highly commendable. It is not for […]Read more "Article No. 840: An Honest Concurrent Use"