Divij analysed the approach of the Delhi HC towards intermediary liability in its recent ruling in Loreal v. Brandworld. This post is a continuation of his commentary on the same topic in a previous post on Christian Louboutin v Nakul Bajaj. In his post, he first lays out when an e-commerce platform becomes an intermediary and when it can claim safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act. He then goes on to conclude that the Delhi HC does not give adequate clarity on intermediary safe harbour. Further, he concludes that the judgment does not provide any finding on primary and secondary liability of online marketplaces.
I had written a post on the Rihanna-Trump controversy (The pop idol had called out the President for playing one of her popular songs at his rally). In my post, I first examine the licensing norms regarding such political usage and the legal protection available to copyright holders in such cases. Noting that the Indian licensing regimen does not address this issue, I conclude that current licensing norms need to be revised in USA and the same needs to be introduced in India. I further conclude that consent of copyright holders must be procured for such political usage.
Pankhuri recently announced that the Embassy of Italy, in collaboration with K&S Partners, is organizing a half-day seminar on protection and enforcement of geographical indications (GIs) in EU and Italy on Monday, November 26, 2018 in New Delhi.
Wrangler Apparel Corporation v. Harkhit Rawat – Delhi District Court [November 15, 2018]
The Court granted an ex parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark “WRANGLER” in infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s identical mark in respect of apparel, garments, jeans and allied goods. The Court stated that the Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the mark and on its comparison with that of the Defendant found them to be structurally, visually and phonetically similar. The Court also considered it appropriate to grant punitive and compensatory damages to the tune of Rupees 2 lakhs in light of the Plaintiff being unnecessarily dragged into litigation.
Omaxe Limited and Another v. Omaxe Infraproject Private Limited and Others – Delhi District Court [November 17, 2018]
The Court granted an ex parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark “OMAXE” in infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s identical mark in respect of real estate or any other goods or services. In arriving at the decision, the Court noted that the Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the mark “OMAXE” and on account of the mark’s continuous and extensive use, stated that it could be solely associated with the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court found the Defendant’s mark to be structurally, visually and phonetically similar to that of the Plaintiff, and noted that co-extensive use of the rival marks would cause confusion in the public and adversely affect the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff. In light of the aforementioned, the Court considered it appropriate to award damages of Rupees 2 lakhs to the Plaintiff.
- Director Radha Bharadwaj moves HC against Akshay Kumar’s ‘Mission Mangal’ over copyright
- Govt to launch initiative to boost intellectual property in defence sector: Top Official
- After rhyming name game, Starbucks files cases against firms supplying fake company products
- ‘Scream’ Mask Maker sues Celtics’ Terry Rozier for Copyright Infringement
- US Judge Slams Copyright Troll For Using His Court “Like an ATM”
- Satanist group settles $50m lawsuit with Netflix in copyright row over Sabrina TV show
- Zhang Yimou’s ‘Shadow’ Hit With Music Copyright Lawsuit