Divij broke the news about a recent order delivered by the Delhi HC in Raj Rewal v. Union of India and Ors., wherein the Court ruled that an architect, in the capacity of a legal ‘author’ of a building, does not have the right to object to its modification or destruction by the owner of such building. The Court’s decision contradicts the one delivered in Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, where the Delhi HC had taken an opposite stance on the matter altogether. In his post, Divij states that this decision highlights the need to release statutory rules on moral rights of authors of artistic works for the sake of resolving such conflicts.
I posted about the Indian Patent Office’s delay in releasing Patent Agent Registration numbers. In my post, I point out that this matter needs to addressed quickly since the results of the Patent Agent Examination 2018 have been released a long time ago and such delay hinders successful candidates from initiating their practice.
Parveen Kumar Jain v. Rajan Seth and Others – Delhi High Court [May 8, 2019]
The Court refused to grant an injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s registered mark “CHUR CHUR NAAN” and “AMRITSARI CHUR CHUR NAAN”, by using a deceptively similar mark “PAHARGANJ KE MASHOOR CHUR CHUR NAAN”. The Court observed that the term “CHUR CHUR” simply meant “crushed” in common parlance, and was incapable of acquiring trade mark signification. Moreover, it was pointed out by the Defendant that various sellers of Naan distinguished their shops by using the proprietor’s name. Accordingly, the Court instructed the Defendant to change its name to “PAHARGANJ SETH KE MASHOOR CHUR CHUR NAAN”, with a further instruction that the entire name should be written in a uniform manner in order to avoid giving any undue prominence to the phrase “CHUR CHUR NAAN”.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v. Ajanta Pharma Limited – Delhi High Court [May 10, 2019]
The dispute between the Parties arose on account of the Defendant’s use of the mark “GLOTAB”, which was argued to be allegedly similar to the Plaintiff’s mark “GLOEYE”. The question of prime importance in the case was whether the test for infringement and passing off for nutraceutical products was the same as that for pharmaceutical products. At the onset, the Court took the fact that both Parties were registered trademark holders into consideration, and accordingly no case for infringement could be made out. The Court observed that even though both the nutraceutical products were derived from plants, no lenient test for passing off could be adopted in their respect. Accordingly, the test for pharmaceutical products would be applicable to nutraceutical products in matters of passing off. With respect to the question of similarity between the two marks, the Court noted that both of them were to be used for ocular diseases and the suffixes “EYE” and “TAB” were insufficient to create a distinction between them. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s product had been registered prior to that of the Defendant’s product. In light of these facts, the Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff.
Adidas AG and Another v. Praveen Kumar and Others – Delhi High Court [May 14, 2019]
The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing and passing off the Plaintiffs’ registered “THREE STRIPES” mark by using an identical mark in respect of footwear. In arriving at this decision, the Court noted that the Plaintiffs were the registered proprietors of the “THREE STRIPES” mark, and the same had been used by them for several years. Moreover, the Court observed that various decisions had been decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs in respect of its “THREE STRIPES” mark. Accordingly, the Court awarded damages to the Plaintiffs to the tune of Rs. 21 lakhs from all the three Defendants, in order to cover the heavy costs of litigation, investigation and fees of the Local Commissioners.
Unilever PLC and Another v. Masqati Dairy Products – Bombay High Court [May 20, 2019]
The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing and passing off the Plaintiffs’ registered mark “FEAST” by using a deceptively similar mark “CHOCO FEAST” in respect of ice-creams. This order was passed on the condition that the Defendant donate Rs. 5 lakhs to the Aware Foundation, which cares for wounded and sick animals found on the streets. Interestingly, the Court also ordered the infringing goods seized by the Court Receiver to be distributed among poor children, and the wrappers of the same to be destroyed by Parties.
- Delhi HC dismisses ShareChat copyright violation petition against Helo
- Thrissur Pooram: Resul Pookutty denies copyright allegations
- Pubs, restaurants face music from the makers
- Order refusing UOC’s Patent application for Enzalutamide set aside by the DHC and the matter remanded back for reconsideration
- Natco Prohibited from Manufacturing Generic Ceritinib
- HC imposes interim stay on 9 cos for trade mark infringement
- Himachali Kala Zeera, Chulli Oil get Geographical Indication tag
- The Copyright for the Satoshi White Paper is Already Causing Trouble
- Iron Maiden Suing Developers Of Ion Maiden For Copyright Infringement
- Poland challenges EU’s new copyright law over censorship fears
- Redditor wins right to use anonymous screen name in copyright case
- Facebook Files Patent for Kite Drone