Category Archives: Trademark

Trademark

“Drugs Are Not Sweets” – Bombay HC Imposes Exemplary Costs for Pharma Trademark Infringement


In Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Curetech Skincare and Anr., Mr. Justice Kathawalla of the Bombay High Court imposed costs of 1.5 crores against the defendant found to be ‘habitually’ committing trademark infringement of pharmaceutical products. The decision is significant for the quantum of damages awarded and the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind the award of exemplary costs. Brief Background The dispute concerns Mumbai-based generics manufacturer Glenmark, and its product Candid – B (an anti-fungal cream). The principal defendant is Galpha…


Read More »
Trademark

The Dilemma of Determining Well-Known Marks


In a trademark infringement suit, Texmo Industries inter alia prayed that their mark, TEXMO, be declared as a well-known mark under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Under sub-sections (6)-(9), this section lays down a number of factors that must be considered before granting well-known status to a mark. However, in this particular case, the issue that was raised, was whether the High Court had the power to declare a mark as well-known. This question arises primarily due…


Read More »
Copyright Overlaps in IP Patent Trademark

Obscenity and Morality under IP Law


  Obscenity under  the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) is a relic of India’s colonial past. Though the need for such a provision is often subject to debate, it is indisputable that the judiciary’s interpretation of this provision has been often been anachronistic in past instances. The judiciary has, no doubt, evolved from the infamous Hicklin Test (tendency of the impugned material to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences) to the contemporary community standards (testing the impugned material against contemporary…


Read More »
Trademark

Some Reflections on the WTO Panel Ruling in the Plain Packaging Dispute: Pulling the Rug from under Your Legs and Missed Opportunities – Part II


In Part I of this two-part guest post on the WTO Panel Report in the tobacco plain packaging dispute, Adarsh argued that the Panel didn’t get everything right in holding that the Tobacco Plain Packaging Measures (TPP measures) do not violate the TRIPs Agreement and discussed three points on which he believes the Panel went wrong. In Part II of the post below, he argues that the Complainants also didn’t raise all the right arguments and missed some important ones. Some Reflections…


Read More »
Trademark

Some Reflections on the WTO Panel Ruling in the Plain Packaging Dispute: Pulling the Rug from under Your Legs and Missed Opportunities – Part I


We are pleased to bring to you a two-part guest post by Adarsh Ramanujan on the WTO Panel Report in the tobacco plain packaging dispute. Adarsh is an advocate primarily assisting clients as a litigation attorney. He has recently started his own counsel practice with offices in Delhi and Chennai after having spent considerable time with Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan at their New Delhi and Geneva offices. He obtained his B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) degree (Gold Medalist) from National Law University, Jodhpur  and…


Read More »
Trademark

In a Trademark Registration Dispute, Supreme Court Arrives at Correct Destination, Albeit By Adopting a Legally Suspect Path


In an interesting judgment delivered late last month, a Supreme Court (“Court”) bench consisting of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan ruled on the principles to be adopted for resolving trademark disputes concerning goods or services falling within the same class(s). While the Court appears to have arrived at the correct destination, I share Eashan Ghosh’s view that the Court could have adopted a more legally robust path in arriving at that destination. [Long post ahead!] Factual matrix The Respondent,…


Read More »
Trademark

Delhi HC Awards Punitive Damages for Infringement of Christian Louboutin’s Red Sole Trademark


Justice Yogesh Khanna of the Delhi High Court, in his judgment dated July 31, 2018 (“Louboutin-3”), has granted permanent injunction and punitive damages against a Delhi based retailer for infringing the famed ‘Red Sole’ trademark of Christian Loubutin. The order appears to have taken a diametrically opposite view to the one taken by another judge of the same Court, Justice Valmiki Mehta, who barely a month ago, had held that Christian Louboutin’s ‘Red Sole’ Trademark was not eligible for trademark…


Read More »
Trademark

A Freudian Flip by the Delhi High Court – Of Trademark Similarity and a Psychological Slippery Slope


In Gillette Company LLC vs. Tigaksha Metallics Private Ltd, the Delhi High Court recently passed an order deciding to extend an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s mark. Interestingly, the decision in favour of the plaintiff hinged a lot on psychological theories, about associative thinking and memory retrieval, read and endorsed by the judge. Background The plaintiff, Gillette, instituted a suit against two defendants, Tigaksha Metallics Private Limited and Supermax Personal Care Private Limited, seeking a permanent…


Read More »
Trademark

P&G Wins Trademark Case Against Jamia Remedies


As per Livemint, the Bombay high court restrained UP-based Unani medicine company Jamia Remedies from manufacturing and selling its mouth dusting powder under the ‘Ora-B’ brand. P&G had earlier approached the Bombay high court against Unani medicine company, Jamia Remedies, alleging infringement of their trademark ‘Oral-B’. [Please note that I am yet to go through the Order. I am relying on news reports.] Procter & Gamble (P&G) had  also successfully sought the court’s intervention so as to permanently stop Jamia from…


Read More »
Trademark

A Note on Madras High Court Judgment in M/S.N.Ranga Rao & Sons vs M/S.Shree Balaji Associates


Background This Madras High Court judgment sets out certain significant pointers with respect to defensive registration (in the context of Trade Marks Act, 1958) and well-known marks (in the context of Trade Marks Act, 1999). My endeavour is to highlight these aspects of the judgment. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying to quash the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent viz., Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The IPAB had earlier allowed the appeal filed by the…


Read More »