SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 24-30)

Thematic Highlight

Harshavardhan came up with an entertaining post on the recent controversy surrounding the title of the Tamil film “Mersal“. The problem arose because another producer registered a variant of the title with the writer’s association, but the producer of “Mersal” trade marked it later. Using the interesting narrative technique of a drama, he brought some fishy facts to light. Even if the topic doesn’t interest you much, I would recommend this piece purely for the narrative style and extent of investigative research put into it.

Topical Highlight

Discussing a recent patent infringement claim filed against the government in Hyderabad, Prashant covered the following areas:

i. Brief introduction to the claims filed in the High Court and District Courts.
ii. S. 47, 99, 100 and the interplay affecting the right of the government to use patents.
iii. Case law analysis dealing with the government’s use of patents “merely of it’s own use” and “for the purposes of government

Other Posts

First up, Mr. Rajiv brought to your notice that TRAI was inviting comments from the public. TRAI sought to consider suggestions with respect to facilitating the telecom manufacturing industry by altering the Patent law system and also, regarding dispute resolution mechanisms for determining royalty distribution according to FRAND terms. Lastly, Mr. Rajiv commented on the turf wars between TRAI and CCI.

Following which, Balu wrote a fascinating post on the nexus between piracy and terrorism funding. HIs discussion points were as follows:

i. Recent discourse on the topic, including the Union Home Minister’s comments.
ii. RAND and FATF studies on the issue.
iii. Lack of robust data on the link between piracy and terrorism.
iv. Exaggerated blame on piracy.

Next, reproducing a translated transcript of Dinkar’s 1957 Rajya Sabha speech on the Copyright Bill, Prashant marvels at Dinkar’s articulation of a need for copyright law to further free speech and democracy. Dinkar argues that without a source of income distinct from the state, authors would not be able to write freely on society or the state.

Finally, Mathews dealt with the recent turf war between TRAI and CCI. While accepting the need for co-operation and mandatory consultation between the two regulators, he notes that consultation needs to be within the context of primacy being attributed to one of the regulators. He argues that the same would ensure finality in decision making and consequently, will avoid impasses.

Other Developments 



1. P.Periyasamy v. K.Saravanan – Madras High Court [September 13, 2017]

The case, though related to copyright infringement, deals with the procedural aspect rather than any substantive material related to intellectual property. The court passed an order to restore the case in the Trial Court as the Trial court had rejected the plaint on the basis that there was no cause of action and that filing an FIR alone did not constitute a cause of action. The Plaintiff had brought a suit against the Defendants for using their copyrighted chimney design, despite the Defendants being earlier employees of the Plaintiff and also, signatories of a non-disclosure agreement.

This matter related to an infringement of the Plaintiff’s mark ‘REJUNURON‘, for which the Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction and related reliefs, such as surrender of existing stock. In this order, the Court decreed infringement of the Plaintiff’s mark by the Defendant’s product marked ‘REZURON‘, and passed the judgment in accordance with a memo of compromise between the parties. The terms of the compromise included an undertaking to not use the trade mark REZURON henceforth with respect to their pharmaceutical products.
3. ABP News Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Pobi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Calcutta High Court [September 20, 2017]
This suit was regarding the infringement of the Plaintiff’s mark ‘SHERA BANGALI‘, and remedies thereof. The Defendants acquiesced to the allegations made by the Plaintiff, and undertook to not use this term in their upcoming film or any other venture. Hence, the suit was decreed in terms of a consensus reached at by the parties.
4. Unilever Plc and Anr. v. Chanakya Dairy Ltd and Anr. – Calcutta High Court [September 21, 2017]
This suit was regarding the infringement of the Plaintiff’s trade mark ‘CORNETTO‘ in the ice-cream market, which the Defendants were infringing by selling the same product under the identical trade mark in Punjab. The interlocutory application sought the seizure of the stocks of the impugned product. The Court was of the view that prima facie, the products of the Defendants were a colourable imitation of the Plaintiff’s and hence, granted the prayers.

5, Ahuja Radios v. H K Sound Electronics & Anr. – Delhi High Court [September 25, 2017]

The court passed an ex-parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing and diluting/tarnishing the registered trade mark of Plaintiff (manufacturer of Public Address System (PAS) and audio equipments), ‘AHUJA‘, and passing off their goods as that of the Plaintiff by selling inferior counterfeit audio equipments under the mark ‘AHUJA PAS‘. The court, inter alia, directed the Defendants to pay punitive damages of Rs. 3 lacs to the Plaintiff.

6. Mohd Anesur Rahaman v. Mosarraf Hossain & Ors. – Delhi  High Court [September 25, 2017]

The Court allowed the amendment of plaint to add infringement of trade mark as an additional ground as the Plaintiff had registered the trade mark with the registry. The Court said that allowing this amendment would be necessary to resolve the case at hand.

7. M/S Ishar Dass Amir Chand v. Mr. Jagdish Babu Sharma & Ors., Delhi High Court [September 26, 2017]

The court passed an ex-parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from passing off their henna products as that of the Plaintiff by selling them under the Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘AMIR’S’. The court noted that the Plaintiff was able to prove prior use of the mark with the same name and identical trade dress/get-up. The court also stated that an action of passing off need not be restrained merely because an action of infringement has failed, and/or because the goods were being exported outside India.

8. Sap Se v. Newyorksys Info Solutions– Delhi High Court [September 26, 2017]

The court passed an ex-parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the trade mark ‘SAP‘ and the copyrighted material collectively known as SAP Business Suite. The court held the Defendant liable for copyright and trade mark infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted software and registered mark ‘SAP’. The Defendants were using the trade mark SAP and the copyrighted software for installing/using pirated versions to train students of the Plaintiff’s products without any explicit permission or license.

9. M/S Xegent Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Ea Water Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court [September 27, 2017]

The court passed an ex-parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff by publishing any material copied from the Plaintiff’s magazine ‘India Water Review‘ in their magazine ‘Everything about Water’. The Defendant was copying verbatim and publishing news stories and exclusive news reports published by the Plaintiff in their magazine.


  1. First Indian to Receive a Patent for a Floral Preservation Technology
  2. Rip-Off Shoes Racket Busted
  3. Karnataka to Release Biotechnology Policy Version 3.0
  4. Tesla Reaches Out to Indian Govt. For Entry Through Single Brand Retail Route 
  5. Pharmaceutical Exports Poised to Grow this Year: Pharmexcil
  6. Dr. Reddys Launches Sevelamer Carbonate in US
  7. Ralph Lauren Seeks to End Counterfeit Goods Before India Foray
  8. Suven Life Sciences Gets Neuro Patent from India, Japan
  9. Game of Thrones Memes; Infringement or Fair Use?
  10. Free Trade Talks with EFTR grouping hit IPR, Service Wall


  1. 12 Most Innovative Universities in the World
  2. Malaysia Reduces Cost of Hepatitis C Drug by 99%
  3. Accenture Gets Patent for “Editable Blockchain” Technology
  4. US Misrepresentation Called Out by Antigua in Online Gambling Case at WTO

About The Author

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top