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.
Highlights of the Week
After an illustrious career spanning more than 4 decades at the bar and bench, the doyen of Intellectual Property Rights, Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat retired as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on October 20, 2023. Discussing his lasting legacy, Prashant Reddy highlights some of the features that set him and his tenure as a judge apart. This article was first published in Scroll.in
Recently, the Ministry of Consumers Affairs released the Draft Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns 2023. But what are these dark patterns and how do they interact with different IPRs? Touching upon these crucial questions, Srijaa G. and Yaggya Kapoor write about the menace of dark patterns and discuss some notable examples of regulatory interventions.
Delhi High Court passed an ad interim injunction against the defendant for using the plaintiff’s GSK mark. The court held that the defendant’s use of the impugned mark fulfills the test of triple identity (identical marks, trade channels and consumers) and its adoption of the mark is clearly dishonest and malafide.
The plaintiff, a descendant of the family lineage of Dhrupad vocalists, has filed a suit against the music director, director and producer of the cinematographic film Ponniyin Selvan – 2 for infringing copyright in “Shiva Stuti” composed in Adana Raag. The plaintiff alleged that though the lyrics are different, the taal and beats of the impugned song “Veera Raj Veera” are identical to the subject work. The court heard the two competing works and in order to consider the request for interim relief, it directed the defendants to produce the raw recording of the song “Veera Raj Veera.”
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants are defrauding innocent people by luring them to apply for franchise of plaintiff’s business when no such franchises are extended by them, and in doing so the defendant is wrongfully using the plaintiff’s “Wow Momo” mark. Considering the above, the court passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction order, restricting the defendants from using the plaintiff’s mark, and directed them to disclose the details of persons to whom purported franchises have been offered.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in the favor of the plaintiff, restricting the defendant from using “Puma” mark of the plaintiff. Considering that the defendant did not appear in the proceedings, the court imposed damages to the tune of INR 10 Lakhs and costs of INR 2 lakhs on the defendant.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, restricting the defendants from infringing its ‘liquid heating vessels’ patent. Considering that the defendants stopped appearing in the proceedings for a long time, the court calculated notional damages on a “reasonable royalty basis” relying on publicly available information and imposed damages worth 50 lakhs on the defendant. Additionally, the court further imposed costs worth INR 31, 44, 925/- on the defendants.
Other IP Development
- Delhi High Court restrains Tim Hortons, Gola Sizzlers and Sandoz from unauthorized use of songs from PPL’s repertoire.
- Gujarat High Court claims copyright to take down the videos of a judge rebuking a fellow judge and later apologizing.
- Kerala High Court quashes criminal proceedings against “Kantara” makers.