Comparative Advertising

SpicyIP Fortnightly Review (January 11-24)

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Copyright, Geographical Indication, Patent

Topical Highlight Delhi HC Order Cripples Authors’ Royalty Rights in Underlying Works I critiqued the Delhi High Court’s order in IPRS v. ENIL, which held that underlying works incorporated in sound recordings are not utilized and do not incur royalty when the sound recording is used. I briefly review how the 2012 Amendment was brought in to recognise authors of underlying works’ inalienable right to royalty. In this order, the court has accepted the argument that it is the producer …

SpicyIP Fortnightly Review (January 11-24) Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 31- September 6)

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Copyright, Design, Geographical Indication, Innovation, Others, Patent, Trademark

Topical Highlight T-Series’ Copyright Infringement Claim against Roposo: Intermediary Liability, Safe Harbour and Fair Dealing In this post, I analysed T-Series’ copyright infringement claim against Roposo. I first flagged two relevant features of the application- a music library and an option to ‘collaborate’. I explore whether Roposo can be considered an intermediary and argue that such holding is possible only for the ‘collaborate’ option, leading to personal liability for the music library. Subsequently, for the ‘collaborate’ option for which it …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 31- September 6) Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 22 – 28)

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Topical Highlight To Mock the Corona Word: Disparaging During the Time of Crisis In a post co-authored with Praharsh Gour, Swaraj wrote about disparagement of the famous beer brand ‘Corona’ given its resemblance to the ongoing pandemic in the context of the Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico v. Whiskin Spirits case. Analyzing the order, it is noted that the Court has not recorded its assessment of the advertisement in granting the ex-parte interim injunction. The post goes on to highlight that …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 22 – 28) Read More »

a “Corona Extra'' labelled bottle is in the middle of eight circumscribing small bottles of another product, with arrows emitting from the Corona Extra labelled bottle and words “Stay home” inscribed below. In fact, in the ‘advertisement’, the defendants products are not even distinguishable as belonging to the defendant.

To Mock the Corona Word: Disparaging During the Time of Crisis

/ By / Comparative Advertising, COVID-19, Trademark

[This post has been co-authored with Praharsh Gour. Praharsh is a graduate from Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur and is presently an LL.M. candidate at the Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi] You know you are in for a roller-coaster ride when the name of your 95 year old brand resembles the ongoing pandemic. The recent Covid-19 outbreak has perhaps left the famous beer brand ‘Corona’ swinging like a pendulum between two wildly varying image issues. On …

To Mock the Corona Word: Disparaging During the Time of Crisis Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 18 – 24)

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Copyright, Innovation, Others, Patent, Trademark

[This post has been authored by our intern, Bhavik Shukla, a 5th year student at NLIU, Bhopal] Topical Highlight The Delhi High Court and an Anti-Suit Injunction – Part I & II In a two-part post, Mathews wrote about the Delhi HC’s recent decision in HT Media Ltd. v. Brainlink Int., wherein it granted an interim injunction restraining a New York-based corporation from using the domain name ‘www.hindustan.com’ and proceeding with this suit or filing a related suit before any court. In …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 18 – 24) Read More »

Same Old Disparagement Story: Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction Against Lifebuoy Ad

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Trademark

A single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court recently passed an order granting an interim injunction in the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v. Hindustan Unilever Limited. The case concerned an allegation of disparagement caused to the Plaintiff’s product Dettol antiseptic liquid by the Defendant’s Lifebuoy soap commercial. After the Plaintiff proved a prima facie case of disparagement, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from airing the advertisement until the final decision in the suit. …

Same Old Disparagement Story: Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction Against Lifebuoy Ad Read More »

India’s First Covid-19 IP Dispute? Dettol Handwash Ad Claimed to Disparage Lifebuoy Soap Trademark

/ By / Comparative Advertising, COVID-19, Trademark

In what seems to be India’s first (reported) coronavirus related IP dispute, Hindustan Unilever (HUL) took Reckitt Benckiser (RB) to the Bombay High Court over RB’s most recent Dettol handwash advertisement, alleging that it disparages HUL’s Lifebuoy soap trademark. Background The case came to the court after the HUL (‘Plaintiff’) came across RB’s (Defendant) advertisement promoting its Dettol handwash, which portrayed that bar/solid soaps aren’t as effective as the liquid soap for washing hands, which is particularly important for tackling …

India’s First Covid-19 IP Dispute? Dettol Handwash Ad Claimed to Disparage Lifebuoy Soap Trademark Read More »

Parachute Disparagement Case: A Trivial Error or Actual Malice?

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Others

I read with interest Latha’s post published yesterday on why the ‘Bearded Chokra’ would be liable for disparagement even under the ‘actual malice’ standard. Needless to say, I disagree because it is an incorrect understanding of the ‘actual malice’ standard that undermines the essence of the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and goes against one of the core values that have sustained SpicyIP since its inception. I am yet to find an instance in our young history …

Parachute Disparagement Case: A Trivial Error or Actual Malice? Read More »

Parachute Disparagement Case: Free Speech, Yes; but Not at the Cost of Falsehoods

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Others

This is a rejoinder to Prashant’s recent post, replying to my post on the order of the Division Bench (DB) of the Bombay High Court in the Marico disparagement case. My post was primarily to point out the factual errors committed by the DB in arriving at its conclusions – not on Marico’s legal strategy, as Prashant has stated in his post. Now that Prashant has raised the important point of free speech, let me express my views on that …

Parachute Disparagement Case: Free Speech, Yes; but Not at the Cost of Falsehoods Read More »

Parachute Disparagement Case: In Defense of Free Speech and the ‘Bearded Chokra’

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Others

Over the last decade, after witnessing Shamnad getting sued for alleged defamation by a pharmaceutical company and Aparajita Lath getting a legal notice for alleged defamation from a leading media house (Shamnad’s brilliant response is over here), I have developed quite a fondness for the fundamental right to free speech and defendants in defamation cases filed by corporations. In this backdrop, I feel compelled to reply to Latha’s spirited defense of Marico’s legal strategy in its lawsuit against ‘Bearded Chokra’ …

Parachute Disparagement Case: In Defense of Free Speech and the ‘Bearded Chokra’ Read More »

Scroll to Top