SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 24 – 30)

Prateek brought us this week’s thematic highlight, with the second part to his post on seizure of medicines in transit. In this part, he discusses two things in particular: (i) the EU law on seizure of drugs in-transit; and (ii) the international legal framework governing the same. Prateek explores the former by briefly analyzing the relevant case law, in light of two important EU Regulations. He, then, reflects upon the international framework as applicable to in-transit drugs, by discussing the standards applicable under the TRIPS, GATT and the Doha Declaration.

Pankhuri announced the launch of the first Asian edition of the ‘WIPO-WTO Colloquium Research Papers’ – which is a joint publication by the WIPO Academy and the WTO Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division. The publication is a compilation of fourteen research papers from the 2017 Regional WIPO-WTO Colloquium for IP Teachers and Scholars in Asia that was held in Singapore in February this year.

Other Developments



  1. Levi Strauss & Co. v. Ashok KumarWrangler Apparel Corp. v. Ashok Kumar – Delhi District Court, Saket [December 20, 2017]

In two separate suits brought by the plaintiffs, Levi Strauss and Wrangler against the defendants, the Delhi District Court granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks by using marks structurally, visually and phonetically identical / deceptively similar to those of the plaintiffs. It also observed that the defendants were infringing the plaintiffs’ copyright in the artworks involved in their marks. Relying upon the Delhi High Court’s judgments in the cases The Heels v. Mr. V. K. Abrol & Anr.and Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava, the court also directed the defendants to pay punitive and compensatory damages of Rs. 50,000 each to the plaintiff in both the cases.

  1. Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v. Vinod Jadhav & Ors – Delhi High Court [December 15, 2017]

The Court granted the plaintiffs an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the patent for the drug Sitagliptin, sold by the plaintiffs under the trademark Januvia and Janumet and exported to Mauritius and Singapore by the defendants under the brand name of Sifores. The plaintiffs relied upon a decree passed in their favour in Merek Sharp & Dohme & Anr. v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using, selling, distributing etc. or dealing in “Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate Tablets” or any other salt of “Sitagliptin” and succeeded in making out a prima facie case while the defendants were needlessly delaying the matter, the court held.

  1. Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. Raj Kumar Prasad & Ors– Delhi High Court [December 4, 2017]

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd., the court held that for the rectification of the Register regarding the invalidity of the defendants’ trade mark, the proceedings were to be instituted prior to the suit or the issue of invalid registration of the trademark was to be raised at the time of framing issues, neither of which occurred in the present case. The said Supreme Court judgement also overruled Data Infosys Ltd. v. Infosys Technology, relied upon by the defendants, whose majority view did not consider the contingency of the facts of the present case anyway. The Court further held that an oral request of the counsel for rectification of issues could not be considered and dismissed the application allowing the plaintiff to file a fresh application for amendment of issues.

  1. King Point Enterprises Co Ltd v. Ali Asgar & Ors– Delhi High Court [December 13, 2017]

The plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of trade mark, passing off and for ancillary reliefs; and had been granted ex parte interim relief. The suit subsequently was dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution and the plaintiff in the present case applied for restoration. The court held that the plaintiff could not avail the benefits of legal proceedings and not pursue such proceedings thereafter as in the present case wherein the plaintiff was not diligent after obtaining an interim order. The suit was not restored as the court held that the cause pleaded was not sufficient for non- appearance and the interim order stood vacated as per the dismissal of the suit.

  1. The Tabocco Institute Of India vs Union Of India– Karnataka High Court [December 15, 2017]

The petitioners had challenged the validity of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 that require every  cigarette package or any other tobacco product to have a health warning as specified in the Schedule to the Rules, as well as the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014 that mandate that these health warnings cover at least 85 percent of the display area of the package, of which 60 percent shall be pictorial warning while 25 percent shall be textual. These Rules were challenged on the grounds of violation of constitutional provisions, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The court dismissed the challenge made to the validity of the Packaging and Labelling Rules, 2008 but struck down the Amendment Rules, 2014 as being in violation of the Constitution of India.

  1. Sri Thenandal Films vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited– Madras High Court [December 19, 2017]

The plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1-50 from infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in their cinematographic Film MERSAL. The court held that the suit qualified to be heard by the Commercial Division as it pertained to alleged infringement of copyright. Upon the submission of the learned counsel of the plaintiff that he had instructions from the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, the court dismissed the suit as withdrawn and all interlocutory applications were held to be closed.


  1. Skechers takes Flipkart & other intermediaries to Court over counterfeits
  2. Amul files suit against TM registry for allowing registration of infringing labels
  3. 32 lakh patent applications pending with the Indian Patent Office
  4. Panacea Biotec files plea against patent for pneumonia vaccine
  5. Lambda Televenture to sub-licence patented filter technology 


  1. Bruno Mars And Mark Ronson’s ‘Uptown Funk’ Faces (Yet Another) Copyright Infringement Suit
  2. Chinese firm sues Apple for copyright infringement
  3. Nintendo loses Appeal in Motion Control Patent Case
  4. Harley-Davidson Files Trademark For Two New Names; 48X and Pan America

Sreyoshi Guha

Sreyoshi is a law student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune. Her favourite thing about Intellectual Property Law is Copyrights. She can usually be found doing one of three things: dog-earing her favourite pages of her books, looking up a Zomato menu, or day-dreaming of the day she'll finally meet John Mayer. She doesn't have any notable achievements, except probably that one time when she encountered a crazy pigeon, and lived to tell the tale. Send her your thoughts at: [email protected]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.