Category Archives: Trademark

Copyright Trademark

Where do I Carry on Business?: The Jurisdictional Conundrum post IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (Part II)


Delhi High Court’s Interpretation of Dalia In Ultrahome Constructions v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, a Division Bench of the Delhi HC had an opportunity to interpret IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia.  The Plaintiff was the owner and used the mark “AMRAPALI” inter alia in relation to hotels. It had its registered office in Delhi. The Defendant was using the impugned mark “AMBAPALI GREEN” in Deogarh (Jharkhand), where the Plaintiff also operating a hotel under its AMRAPALI trademark. The Plaintiff brought a suit…


Read More »
Copyright Trademark

Where do I Carry on Business?: The Jurisdictional Conundrum post IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (Part I)


In a previous post, I covered the Bombay HC’s decision on jurisdiction in copyright and trademark litigation in India. As we saw there, the crux of the discussion comprised an analysis of where a person can be said to be “carrying on business” and especially if that place can be a corporate plaintiff’s subordinate office as opposed to its head office. In Manugraph India Limited V. Simarq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, the Bombay HC answers in the negative and…


Read More »
Trademark

Second time [un]lucky? Bombay HC denies Raymond Ltd. rights over ‘Raymond’


‘If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again’, is something Raymond Limited (‘RL’) seems to have imbibed into their litigation strategy. In 2006, RL filed a suit for infringement against Raymond Pharmaceuticals (‘RP’) for the use of ‘Raymond’ (RL’s ‘trademark’) in their corporate name. While a 2007 appeal to a Notice of Motion filed in the suit was dismissed by the Bombay High Court in 2010, the main suit is yet to be heard. The order passed in 2010…


Read More »
Trademark

Searching for Situs: Delhi High Court holds IP transfer by foreign based entity not taxable in India


A division bench (DB) of the Delhi High Court held that income accruing from the transfer of IP by a foreign based entity cannot be subject to income tax in India.  DB resolved an 8-year old dispute and finally settled that the situs of intangible capital assets, such as IP, is deemed to be the same as the situs of its owner. This judgment is available here, and the impugned order passed by the Authority on Advance Rulings (AAR) is…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Trademark

Countering the Menace of Counterfeits


In a development that brings to light some rather interesting issues, the Indian Government has accused Chinese companies of counterfeiting goods legitimately manufactured in India. Noting that large Indian brands such as Godrej, Dabur and Raymond have been at the receiving end of this large-scale counterfeiting, the Government has reportedly told Parliament that it has raised this issue with the appropriate agencies in China. As this article notes, this intervention could not have come at a better time, in light…


Read More »
Trademark

TOI Accuses Guerrilla Advertisers of Violating its IP Rights


In an interesting development, the Times of India (“TOI”) recently issued a warning to guerrilla advertisers, who use the TOI’s newspapers for engaging in illegal insert advertising, about the negative legal ramifications that could result from this unfair trade practice. Noting that such advertisers are perceived by the public at large as “fake” and “fly by night” brands, the warning states that this type of surreptitious advertising reflects very poorly on the brand in question, indicating its tendency to cut…


Read More »
Trademark

The Big Mc-Mac Wars- II: India not Lovin’ McDonald’s as much


(This post has been co-authored by Pankhuri Agarwal. She has recently completed her LL.M. in IP law from the National University of Singapore) In Part I of this post, we had discussed the EU General Court’s recent judgment in Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v. EUIPO & McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd, which upheld the  cancellation of the mark ‘MACCOFFEE’ registered by a Singapore company, Future Enterprises, for its food stuffs and beverages. It was found that use of ‘MACCOFEE’ was without due cause…


Read More »
Trademark

The Olympics Blackout Period, Use of Athlete Attributes and IPRs- Part II


In the second part of this post, I discuss the intent behind the controversial Rule 40 and the reasons for its amendment prior to the Rio Games. I also discuss how Under Armour is one of the first few companies which will benefit from the changes to the new rule. Finally, I will discuss India’s stance on Rule 40. Read on for more. Intent of Rule 40 Rule 40 was initially put in place to protect the ‘amateur’ status of…


Read More »
Trademark

The Olympics Blackout Period, Use of Athlete Attributes and IPRs- Part I


It’s less than a fortnight to the Rio Olympic Games. This calls for a special post on IP and the Olympics. Did you know that rules surrounding the Olympic Games could, in the coming days, result in the latest Nike ad featuring Deepika Padukone being taken off air for a few weeks? If you haven’t already seen it, watch the ad here.  Read on as I delve into Olympic related IP aspects, particularly a controversial Rule 40 of the Olympic…


Read More »
Trademark

Plain Packaging and Investor-State Disputes: Part II


  Picking up from my previous post, where I had examined Uruguay’s victory over Philip Morris in light of other successful plain packaging regulations; I now delve into the merits of the Philip Morris-Uruguay award, as well as examine the question of expropriation of trademark rights. For background reading on this issue, we have widely covered both International as well as Indian developments in plain packaging laws in the past. More specific to plain packaging in light of Investor State…


Read More »