Wondering what IP developments took place last week? Look no further as we present to you the SpicyIP Weekly Review, highlighting the discussions that took place on the blog along with other IP news.
Highlight of the Week
Comments pertaining to transparency and on substantive proposals within the draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2023, submitted to the Ministry of Commerce. Read on to see the comments submitted by Swaraj, Praharsh, and Tejaswini with research assistance from Tanya. If you’d like to share your own submitted comments, please get in touch!
In light of the Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2023, we published a press release from Medecins Sans Frontieres Access Campaign, Third World Network, Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust and Council for Social Development highlighting the potential impact of the Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2023 in accessing affordable medicines.
Would Sending a Cease-and-Desist Notice Harm Your Chances of Securing an Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction? On one hand, they can lead to an amicable settlement between the parties and prevent lengthy litigations. On the other hand, this gives a chance to the violating party to quickly dispose of the goods. What’s the best way forward? Roshan Santhalia shares his perspective.
The Supreme Court while dealing with passing off and acquiescence
in a copyright matter, urged the members of the Bar to cooperate with trial courts which are struggling with a huge pile of pending cases. Lokesh discusses the case in this short tidbit post.
The Plaintiff sought protection of his personality rights, publicity rights and elements associated with his persona like his name, voice, photographs/ likeness, dialogues, manner of dialogue delivery, gestures, signatures. The plaintiff alleged “misuse of features of his persona in malicious ways” which inter alia included use of dialogues as ringtones, manufacturing and selling merchandises with his image, domain names squatting. The court held this to be a misuse of a personality’s name and other elements of the plaintiff’s persona and passed an interim injunction restricting the defendants from using the plaintiff’s name, likeness, image, voice, personality.
The plaintiff, filed a suit alleging copyright infringement of their content by the defendants, who had replicated their content on a platform called ‘People of India.’ The Delhi High Court observed that prima facie there seems to be substantial imitation and issued notices to the defendants.
Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction to the plaintiff on account of the defendant’s launch of the impugned product before the date of institution of the suit.
The Delhi High Court set aside the order passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court) for exceeding jurisdiction. The District Judge had issued notice against application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and had directed appointment of the Local Commissioner to seize the impugned goods. Passing the present order, the court clarified that the application for interim injunction cannot be kept pending and requires prima facie findings on merit.
Relying on the DB order in Dabur v. Emami Ltd. the Delhi High Court refused to file an ad interim injunction without issuing a notice to the defendant. The court held that considering the defendants have been in the market, and the matter is not a case of counterfeiting but of allegedly deceptively similar trademarks, it is appropriate that the defendant is given an opportunity to respond against the ad interim injunction application.
The Delhi High Court granted a dynamic injunction to the plaintiff and considering the rising number of suits against rogue website, suggested legislature to formulate some kind of a policy so that such disputes can avoid taking up the time of the courts.
The Supreme Court passed a stay against the impugned order directing to levy 0.5% under the Biological Diversity Act.
In an appeal against the impugned order from the respondent, the plaintiff argued that the rejection of their patent application was based on outdated CRI guidelines, and their invention related to High-Performance Computing (HPC) provided a technical solution to scheduling challenges in HPC systems. The defendant asserted that the invention lacked novel hardware and was primarily software-based, making it ineligible for patent protection. The court held that the rejection was based on outdated guidelines and directed the Patent Office to re-examine the application without insisting on novel hardware, emphasizing the importance of considering technical contributions in computer-related inventions.
Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to the plaintiff against unauthorized use of its mark “Burger King”, the Crescent Logo Design and Hamburger Refresh Design Logo. The plaintiff alleged fraudulent activities by the defendants offering fake Burger King franchises on fake, illegal and fraudulent websites, leading to financial losses. The defendants were ordered to cease using specific domain names and email addresses associated with the brand. Additionally, the court directed investigations by the Delhi Police Cyber Cell and blocking orders by DoT and MeitY.
Delhi High Court cancelled the registration of the defendant’s mark owing to prior use of the similar mark by the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court allowed the petition for rectification of the register and directed to remove the defendant’s “Marie Stopes International” marks and the “door” device for being obtained dishonestly under the name of a non-existing entity.
- Delhi High Court records evidence by live transcription in patent infringement suit.
- Novartis and Eli Lilly oppose issuing compulsory licenses against Ribocicilib and Abemacicilib
- TRAI started consultation for Research and Development in ICT sector.