+91 44 28120000

Call Us for an Appointment

 

IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 11TH JULY- 16TH JULY

SURANA & SURANA > IPR News  > IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 11TH JULY- 16TH JULY

IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 11TH JULY- 16TH JULY

Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals vs Vatican Lifesciences Private

Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals vs Vatican Lifesciences Private

On July 12, 2022, the High Court of Bombay held that in the case of rival marks where they are phonetically, structurally, aurally, and visually similar; in such a way that a mere cursory look at the rival marks brings out the overwhelming similarity in such a way that’ll lead to the likelihood of confusion and deception amongst members of the trade and public at large, a high degree of protection is required. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the marks “GLEAM’’, “GLEAM 1” and “GLEAM-2”. And defendants are the owner of the trademarks “V-GLIM M1, V-GLIM M2 & V-GLYME-M80”. Thus, a suit was initiated by the plaintiff for infringement and passing off.  And the court also said that a stricter approach is to be called for while applying the test to judge the possibility of confusion of one medicinal product for another by the consumer.

YouTube removes “Lofi Girl” over bogus copyright claim

YouTube removes “Lofi Girl” over bogus copyright claim

Recently YouTube removed internet’s favourite background music called “Lofi Girl” because of a takedown notice which claimed that “Lofi Girl” featured one of its tracks. But however after thorough investigation it found that the copyright claim system was abusive and terminated the account. YouTube also said that they’re working to reinstate the channel’s videos but however it is unclear as to when the live stream and its videos will return.

Army likely to file for intellectual property rights over new digital-pattern uniform

Army likely to file for intellectual property rights over new digital-pattern uniform

According to the sources in the defence and security establishment, it is said that the Indian Army is expected to file for intellectual property over its new digital-pattern uniform and is anticipated to roll out the new design by 2025. The new digital-pattern uniform was designed by National Institute of Fashion and Technology with close coordination with the Indian Army. And the new uniform was showcased in January on the occasion of Army Day. Further, it was said that due to security vulnerabilities, strict instructions such as prohibiting any serving Army personnel to procure the new uniform from unauthorised vendors and vice-versa. And subsequently it was decided that once the IPR process is completed, in case of such action, the parties will have to face legal action and prosecution.

Injunction Order was passed by Delhi High Court against Sithara Entertainment & Ors.

Injunction Order was passed by Delhi High Court against Sithara Entertainment & Ors

Commercial suit was filed by JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd before the Delhi High Court against M/s. Sithara Entertainment and others. It was contended that only JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd has the right to do a Hindi remake of the original Malayalam language film “Ayyappanum Koshiyum” which was originally released on 7th February 2020. Thus, the court was also informed that the nature of the rights granted to M/s. Sithara Entertainment Pvt Ltd by Gold Coin Motion Picture Company was limited to remaking and dubbing of the original Malayalam film in Telugu alone and not in any other language, including Hindi. But however, the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted via order on 31.03.2022 was abandoned. This was done with reference to section 2(uu), 2(d)(v) and section 17 in specific as under section 17, it clearly states that the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright, but the Assignment deed between the parties clearly states that the plaintiff has assigned the rights in favour of the Defendant, without any restrictions or limitations, thus concluding Defendant no.1 has the right to dub the film in any language including Hindi.

Peps Industries private limited v Kurlon Limited

Peps Industries private limited v Kurlon Limited

The plaintiff is the owner of the trademark “NO TURN” which was registered under class 20 for mattresses, sofas, pillows, cushions, etc in February with effect from January 2008. However, in response to the plaintiff’s two notices, the defendant claimed that he was the original user of the trademark NO TURN and had been using it even prior to registration of the plaintiff’s trademark. The court also held on July 13, 2022, based on these, that the defendant’s claim that the passing off lawsuit should be stayed cannot be allowed.  And it was decided that the determination of whether there had been trademark infringement of the mark NO TURN would be stayed until the determination of the defendant’s pending rectification lawsuit.

Delhi High Court restrains Telegram and Mega from using the DocTutorials’s trademark and copyrighted content and directed the 2 platforms to immediately take down any illegal content uploaded on their platform relating to DocTutorials

Delhi High Court restrains Telegram and Mega

The Delhi High Court recently directed the 2 giant platforms Telegram and Mega to immediately take down any illegal content or unauthorized content related to any data or copyrighted work of DocTutorial in any of the channels, websites or URLs owned or operated by DocTutorial. And upon any such notice, the defendants shall take down any such illegal or unauthorized content posted on their platforms within 48 hours. The main issue in this suit was that several unknown persons uploaded and made the video lectures on publicly accessible websites. DocTutorial is an online medical coaching platform for examinations such as NEET, FMGE, etc. wherein high quality videos, soft copy notes and lectures can be accessed. But since the plaintiffs were unable to identify the unknown persons, they filed a suit against the websites and URLs of Mega and Telegram channels.

UMG and Bang’s clash over copyright infringement

UMG and Bang’s clash over copyright infringement

The Universal Music Group had initiated copyright infringement suit against the energy and sports supplements brand claiming the music used in its TikTok promotional videos amounted to infringement. It accused the brand of using parts of the music the company owns without prior permission for usage in about 140 promotional videos. Bang’s stand in the case was that it was of the idea that TikTok provides use of songs with a license to all of its members. UMG also stated that it had made it clear to the brand that no rights are licensed with respect to sound recordings and the musical works that are made available. The Court had ruled that UMG is entitled to partial summary judgment against the brand for unauthorized usage of its music.

Patent awarded for UAID system

Patent awarded for UAID system

Logistics service provider, Delhivery has been granted the U.S patent titled System and method for assigning a unique identification for an address. The major object of the system is to identify different address by breaking down and comparing address containing different verbal expressions. The company states that the system contributes to geographically accurate delivery and proves to be time efficient. 

Ramada International, Inc vs La-Ramada World Private Limited & ANR

Ramada International, Inc vs La-Ramada World Private Limited & ANR

The plaintiff – Ramada International, INC had initiated the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of its trademark. The Plaintiff’s marks included ‘RAMADA’ and ‘RAMADA HOTELS’ and the Defendant used marks such as ‘LA RAMADA’, ‘LA RAMADA WORLD’, ‘LA RAMADA WORLD RESORT & SPA’ and ‘LA RAMADA WORLD’. An ex parte ad-interim injunction was already granted on the terms that the Defendant shall not use any mark similar to that of the Plaintiff’s marks, but the defendant continued the usage of such deceptively similar marks. Further, domain names similar to that of the Plaintiff was also being used by the Defendant. The Court had ordered the blocking of the domain names, and delisting of the defendant’s Google listings from the platform.

Soothe Healthcare Private Limited vs Dabur India Limited

Soothe Healthcare Private Limited vs Dabur India Limited

Soothe Healthcare had initiated a suit against Dabur claiming that the company had infringed its trademarks. Marks including “SUPER CUTESTERS”, “SUPER CUTEZ” and “SUPER CUTE’S” were registered by Soothe Healthcare and they claim that Dabur’s mark ‘DABUR BABY SUPER PANTS’ was deceptively similar to its mark used for similar products. The Court was of the opinion that Dabur did not infringe upon Soothe’s trademarks and stated that except for the word SUPER there was no other similar factor between the rival marks. Further, the packaging and the colour scheme of the marks were different, thus the claims of Soothe Healthcare were dismissed.     

Tv9 Karnataka Pvt. Ltd. vs Arya Media Networks

Tv9 Karnataka Pvt. Ltd. vs Arya Media Networks

The Plaintiff is a popular news channel and hold trademarks such as TV 7 and TV7 KARNATAKA and came across the Defendant who used the mark KARNATAKA in the same font as that of the Plaintiff. Thus initiated the present suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant. The court was of the opinion that the Plaintiff’s logo was distinct and separate and the Defendant’s usage of the similar mark would cause confusion, thus amounting to intended gross infringement of the Plaintiff’s trademark. Further, the Court restrained the Defendant from usage of similar marks and ordered removal and destroyal of any pictures, videos, etc. of the Defendant’s mark irrespective of its publication in any form. 

Knitpro International vs Examiner Of Trade Marks

Knitpro International vs Examiner Of Trade Marks

This appeal challenges the decision of the Examiner in relation to the registration of shape of a knitting needle in Class 26 in respect of ‘knitting needles and crochet hooks’ which was rejected. The Appellant claims that the shape of the knitting needle sought to be registered is very distinctive and has acquired secondary meaning. The Court was of the question as to what are the distinctive elements in the needle image/ logo that entitles it to a shape trade mark protection. It also stated that for a shape to be registered as a trademark, it has to be a distinctive shape that associates the mark with the source by itself without anything further like a name or logo appended on it, following which the Appellant had preferred to withdraw the appeal. The court also opined that the Appellant shall not be barred from registration of the shape mark at a later stage, upon establishing that the same has acquired a secondary meaning and is hence distinctive.

No Comments

Leave a Comment