Others

SpicyIP Fortnightly Review (November 4 – 17)


Adarsh had previously written two posts on the various misunderstandings surrounding the Plant Varieties Act (“PPV Act“). He had focussed on the Public Notice 01/2019 (“Notice“) published in May 2019, and had pointed out that the Notice was ultra vires. In his third post, he points out that the Notice states that only single cross hybrids could be registered. In his post, he explains how the PPV Act and UPOV allow for registration of registration of multi-parent hybrids too.

Divij wrote a post on a notice released by the Bombay High Court which directed all urgent mentioning for ex parte ad interim applications in IP matters were to be held in the chambers of the judge, from November 7, 2019. In his post, Divij focuses on the problems posed by ex parte ad interim injunctions and explains that this should only be exercised in exceptional cases. This procedure currently stands revoked.

Pankhuri announced about two PhD scholarship opportunities for the Australian Research Council funded project on ‘Food security and the governance of local knowledge in India and Indonesia’ at the University of Newcastle (UON), Australia. The deadline for applications is November 30, 2019.

Pankhuri further announced that Third World Network (TWN), Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Mumbai and Jan Swasthya Abhiyan are organising a workshop on Access to Medicines, TRIPS and Patents in the Developing World from December 17-21, 2019, at TISS Mumbai. The deadline for applications is November 25, 2019.

Other Developments

Indian

Judgments

Nike Innovate CV v. Sahibjeet Singh Sachdeva and Others – Delhi District Court [November 4, 2019]

The Court granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 3 from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s marks “NIKE” and “SWOOSH” in respect of footwear, athletic shoes and other allied goods. With respect to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the Court observed that the Plaintiff had failed to prove its case of infringement as there was no record or expert opinion submitted by the Plaintiff to that extent. In the case of Defendant No. 3 in whose premises the Local Commissioner had conducted a raid, the Court found infringement of the Plaintiff’s aforementioned marks. The Plaintiff had already compromised with Defendant Nos. 4 to 8 impleaded in the case before the hearing and no order was passed concerning them.

Ultratech Cement Limited and Another v. New Century Cement Company and Others – Bombay High Court [November 6, 2019]

The Court granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s mark “ULTRATECH” by using marks containing the word “ULTRA” in respect of cement. The Defendants represented that they would not use the mark in the future, and that they would apply for the cancellation/ removal of their registered marks, namely “ULTRA PREMIUM PLUS”, “ULTRA PREMIUM” and “ULTRA PREMIUM CEMENT BEMISAL MAJBUTI”.

Kitply Industries Limited v. S. Manikanandan and Others – Calcutta High Court [November 6, 2019]

The Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the Respondents from infringing and passing off the Petitioner’s mark “KITPLY” by using various marks containing “KIT” in respect of furniture. The Court noted that the Petitioner had prima facie substantiated its case, and the Respondents were also infringing the Petitioner’s copyrights and its tagline.

Ultratech Cement Limited and Another v. Chunar Churk Cement Limited and Others – Bombay High Court [November 6, 2019]

The Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from using any mark identical to or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ marks “ULTRATECH”, “BIRLA”, “ULTRA” or “THE ENGINEERS CHOICE” during the pendency of the hearing and final disposal of the suit.

Burberry Limited v. Aditya Varma – Delhi District Court [November 7, 2019]

The dispute between the Parties arose on account of the Defendant’s alleged infringement of the Plaintiff’s mark “BURBERRY” by adopting an identical mark in respect of apparels. There was seizure of the alleged counterfeit goods from Defendant’s shop, however the Plaintiff failed to prove that the goods were counterfeit. Accordingly, the Court gave the Defendant a benefit of the doubt and dismissed the Plaintiff’s case.

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Aditya Varma – Delhi District Court [November 7, 2019]

The dispute between the Parties arose on account of the Defendant’s alleged infringement of the Plaintiff’s mark “LOUIS VUITTON” by adopting an identical mark in respect of apparels. Though the Plaintiff claimed the goods seized by the Local Commissioner to be counterfeit in nature, it was unable to prove the same. Accordingly, the Court gave the Defendant a benefit of the doubt and dismissed the Plaintiff’s case.

Pan Seed Private Limited v. M/s. Kishan Green Field Agritech and Others – Calcutta High Court [November 8, 2019]

The Court granted a decree of interim injunction restraining the Respondents from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s mark “PAN” by using a deceptively similar mark “DOUBLE PAAN”, and from infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright in its label containing the mark “PAN” along with a betel leaf by using a similar label. The Court noted that the Petitioner was the registered proprietor of the mark “PAN” and a copyright holder in respect of its label. Therefore, the Court noted that the Respondent’s adoption of a deceptively similar mark and a similar label led to infringement, and the Petitioner had substantiated its case for the grant of an interim injunction.

Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v. Samara TV – Delhi District Court [November 8, 2019]

The Court granted an ex parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from broadcasting Plaintiff’s copyrighted works through its cable services. In determining infringement, the Court acknowledged that the Plaintiff had valid and subsisting copyrights in its works which could subsequently not be broadcasted by the Defendant without a valid licence. The Court observed that the Defendant had committed continuous infringement by ignoring communications from the Plaintiff and failing to pay licence fees. The Plaintiff was further granted damages of Rupees 5 lakhs, considering the substantial loss and damage caused by the Defendant on account of its continuous infringement.

News

  • The Delhi High Court has sought Trade Marks Registrar’s affidavit on streamlining processing of trademark applications and increasing its efficiency.
  • Aditya Birla Group files copyright infringement suit against MP Birla Group
  • Lawsuit filed against Shweta Tiwari-Starrer ‘Mere Dad Ki Dulhan’
  • India decides not to join mega RCEP trade deal as key concern
  • Tea Board open to holding talks with ITC to sort out trademark issue
  • Alleged plagiarism by makers of Bala, two directors move courts.
  • Karur hotelier restrained from using ‘Star Briyani’ trademark for restaurants
  • Ministry complains to Delhi Police on selling of non-price edition of Economic Survey, case filed
  • Madras high court restrains Dindigul Star Biriyani from using trademark
  • Innovation in India and Bangalore figures in the World IP Report, 2019
  • Natco in legal fight with FMC to produce CTPR based insecticide in India
  • Delhi HC refuses To summon Bihar’s CM Nitish Kumar as a plaintiff’s witness in a copyright infringement suit against him.
  • Two varieties of Darjeeling tea i.e., green and white tea, have been registered under Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, with effect from October 2019,

International

  • Google Bid to End Oracle Copyright Suit to Be Heard by US Supreme Court
  • China-EU agreement on geographical indications a milestone: commerce ministry

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.