Comparative Advertising II

Reckitt states, on 15.03.1979, it registered the word mark ‘HARPIC’. HUL also manufactures and markets a toilet cleaner, which is sold under the trademark ‘DOMEX’. Learned Single Judge declined Reckitt’s prayer to interdict HUL from broadcasting a TV Commercial. It necessary, fair amount of latitude be available to advertisers. There is an element of creativeness […]

Read more "Comparative Advertising II"

Uno Minda v. Minda Uto

Plaintiffs cannot seek a restraint against Defendants from using their registered trademark ‘MINDA UTO’ for Plaintiffs do not have registration for said goods under Class 04 while Defendants do. In view of Section 31 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 registration of the trademark is prima facie evidence of its validity in favor of Defendants. […]

Read more "Uno Minda v. Minda Uto"

Domain Name III

Learned Single Judge did not agree, Courts in Delhi could have jurisdiction. It does not take much in the virtual world to masquerade as somebody else. According to us, principles surrounding territorial jurisdiction, in cases of online trade via internet websites, are fairly well established. Even if a website is not directed at customers in […]

Read more "Domain Name III"

White Lace v. Wild Lake

Plaintiff has ‘WHITE LACE’ gin, ‘WHITE LACE’ vodka et cetera. It is submitted, on account of long, continuous and extensive use of the trade mark ‘WHITE LACE’ in relation to alcoholic beverages, Plaintiff has attained immense goodwill and reputation. It is submitted, Defendant has been selling identical products under the impugned mark: ‘WILD LAKE’.   […]

Read more "White Lace v. Wild Lake"

Bolt, Pre-Litigation Mediation

Estonia-based-Plaintiff submits, Defendants are using an identical mark ‘BOLT’ with an identical color scheme. Plaintiff: SC has held, when an urgent interim relief is being sought, suit can be filed without resorting to pre-litigation mediation. Defendants: SC has held, with effect from 20.08.2022, pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is […]

Read more "Bolt, Pre-Litigation Mediation"

No Bottle, Just Bottle

Plaintiffs claim, lock, stock and barrel copying by Defendant. Defendant labels both Plaintiffs and itself as pirates, sailing in high seas of prior art(s). Hipster Bottles were launched by Plaintiff No. 1 in India in May, 2019. Plaintiff No. 1 is Proprietor of Registered Design No. 306577 in terms of Section 2(1)(j) of The Designs […]

Read more "No Bottle, Just Bottle"

Comparative Advertising I

Marico’s grievance pertains to Dabur. It is alleged, impugned advertisements convey a clear message: Marico’s product is ineffective and useless. On behalf of Dabur it is contended, impugned advertisements are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and are legitimate, honest, truthful, well substantiated and statistically proven.   A balance has to be struck. An advertiser cannot, while […]

Read more "Comparative Advertising I"

Defamation in Commercial Suit

T.V. Today Network Limited, incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956, operating ‘AajTak’, ‘AajTak HD’, ‘India Today Television’ and ‘Good News TV’, submitted, Defendants Nos. 1 to 9 tarnished its reputation. The suit is not just for relief against ‘defamation’, which would certainly not constitute a ‘commercial suit’, but is one in which violation of ‘copyright’ […]

Read more "Defamation in Commercial Suit"

The Case of Ayyappan and Koshi

Plaintiff’s Creative Team came across ‘Ayyappanum Koshiyum’, which was released on 07.02.2020 and was a huge success. Plaintiff sought assignment of Hindi Remake Rights. Recitals of Deed of Assignment, dated 13.05.2020, prima facie show, Remake and Dubbing Rights inter alia included making a New Cinematograph Film with Right to Dub the Malayalam Film as well […]

Read more "The Case of Ayyappan and Koshi"

Section 59 of The Patents Act, 1970

Due to objections raised by Patent Office, Nippon A&L Inc. chose to amend claims to ‘process’ alone. It is common understanding, ‘product‘ claims are much broader than ‘process‘ claims. In present case, amendment of claims from ‘product by process’ to ‘process’ alone is clearly a step down. Section 59(1) of The Patents Act, 1970 as […]

Read more "Section 59 of The Patents Act, 1970"

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"