The Case of Three Faces

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

‘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"

[Intellectual] Forum Shopping III

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"

An Honest Concurrent Use II

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"

Domain Name I

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"

Name of God

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"

Serpenti

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

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"

5 LAKHS FOR SUPREME COURT

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"

Imperial Blender’s Casino

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"

An Identical Trademark

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"

Red Herrings

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"

Rooh Afza Returns

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 Copyright Act, 1957

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"