Thematic Highlight
In his guest post, Adarsh Ramanujan argued that there is a hidden indictment of the Aadhar Act in the Justice Sri Krishna Committee Report and its proposal for the Personal Data Protection Bill 2018. He argues that the proposal’s suggestions to make UIDAI’s functioning subject to the proposed Bill, mandating an online-offline verification split and amend Section 29 of the Aadhar Act all indicate that the Report identifies Aadhar as a problem in the data protection regime.
Topical Highlight
Rahul wrote about a constitutional challenge to provisions on compulsory and statutory licensing under the Copyright Act, 1957 in the Supreme Court. He highlights the principal arguments that have been put forth in the petition, including a challenge on arbitrariness under Article 14 and freedom of trade under Article 19. He argues that this writ is unlikely to succeed since the provision under challenge serve an important legislative purpose and there exist mechanisms to equitably determine the rate of royalty.
Prarthana wrote a post on a recent Bombay High Court decision which concerned certain ambiguities in the Patent Agent Examination 2016. The ambiguity was with respect to the correct answer to a particular question, which rested on the interpretation of Section 39 of the Patents Act, 1970. Prarthana argues that the decision, which was against the petitioner, does not provide a cogent reason to support the answer provided in the key. She also notes that the language used in the question made it inherently ambiguous.
Other Developments
Indian
Judgments
M/s. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited v. Malook Singh & Another – Delhi District Court [September 4, 2018]
The Court granted an ex parte decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks “LOUIS PHILIPPE” or any other identical or deceptively similar marks or logos to the Plaintiff’s registered mark, in respect of manufacturing and trading of readymade clothing and other allied products. In arriving at this decision, the Court considered that the Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the “LOUIS PHILIPPE” marks and logos, and the Defendant had adopted a mark which was wholly and absolutely similar to the Plaintiff’s mark in each aspect without their permission. The Court was also of the opinion that the case was fit for the award of punitive damages to the tune of Rupees 25,000 in order to deter a wrongdoer from indulging in unlawful activities.
M/s. VRS Foods Limited v. rem Chand – Delhi High Court [September 4, 2018]
The Court granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s registered trademark “PARAS” by using an identical and deceptively similar mark “PARAS” and “PARAS GOLD”, respectively in respect of manufacturing and marketing milk and dairy products, vanaspathi and edible oil etc. The Court noted that the Defendant had adopted an identical mark to that of the Plaintiff and also dealt in identical goods. In light of the same, the Court concluded that there was a clear case for violation of statutory and common law rights in the Plaintiff’s mark.
Unilever PLC & Another v. Anoy Paul & Others – Calcutta High Court [August 10, 2018]
The Court granted a decree of interim injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s registered trademark “CORNETTO” by using an identical and deceptively similar mark “CORNETTO” and “CONATTO”, respectively in respect of frozen desserts and ice cream. The Court opined that the packets in which the goods of the Defendant were sold in a colourable and deceptive imitation of the Plaintiff’s well-known trademark. In view of this, the Court found a sufficient prima facie case against the Defendant.
Yibeal Tradex Private Limited v. Soham Paul – Calcutta High Court [August 27, 2018]
The Court granted a decree of interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing and passing off the Petitioner’s registered trademark “HYPERXCHANGE” by using a deceptively similar mark “HYPER EXCHANGE” in respect of gadgets sold online and offline. The Court noted that there was substantial identity between the two marks and the Respondent as an employee of the Petitioner was aware of the said mark and the use of the marks.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. J.K. Jain – Calcutta High Court [September 5, 2018]
The Court granted a decree of interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing and passing off the Petitioner’s copyright in its packet for selling the detergent powder “ACTIVE WHEEL” by using a deceptively similar mark packet for selling its detergent “AXXON”. The Court noted that the Respondent’s product was sold in a colourable and deceptive imitation of the Petitioner’s label over which it possessed copyright. However, the Respondent was not restrained from using the mark “AXXON” in relation to its detergent.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Gajender Jain – Calcutta High Court [September 10, 2018]
The Court granted a decree of interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing and passing off the Petitioner’s copyright in its packet for selling the detergent powder “ACTIVE WHEEL” by using a deceptively similar mark packet for selling its detergent under the marks “MICRO EZY WASH”, “MICRO WASH” and “MICRO POWER WASH”. The Court noted that the Respondent’s product was sold in a colourable and deceptive imitation of the Petitioner’s label over which it possessed copyright. However, the Respondent was not restrained from using its aforementioned marks in relation to its detergent.
M/s. Inter Ikea Systems BV and Another v. Sham Murari and Others – Delhi High Court [September 7, 2018]
The dispute concerned the alleged infringement and passing off of the Plaintiffs’ registered mark “IKEA” with respect to home furnishing products by the Defendants through using an identical mark for the sale of spare automobile parts. The Plaintiffs had already been granted a preliminary decree of injunction in December 2017, and the resolution of the actual amount of damages was pending. In granting damages of Rupees 15 lakhs, the Court noted that the Defendants had not been bona fide in their conduct as they had filed misleading statements and a false affidavit before the trademark registry. This sum was arrived at by the Court by estimating the profit to have been made by the Defendants over the few months in which they used the impugned mark.
News
Government seeks Geographical Indication tag for ‘Odisha Rasagola’
A study shows low IPR awareness in India
Madras High Court Deals With Liabilities Of An Intermediary In A Copyright Infringement Dispute
ISPs cannot host Tamil film without copyright
FIIT-JEE appears to be encashing on IIT’s name in co-branding of the metro station, observes HC
Dr Reddy’s Laboratories launches Neostigmine Methylsulfate Injection, USP in US Market
Trademark Infringer Before Delhi HC To Undertake Social Service In Kerala Flood Relief Camps
International
The battle over Crispr patents comes to a close
EU Passes Controversial Copyright Directive Articles 11 and 13
