IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 17TH JULY- 23RD JULY
Marico Limited vs Dabur India Limited
The Petitioner initiated a suit for infringement and disparagement in relation to the advertisement published by Dabur in various newspapers containing a disclaimer that implies that the Device/ Label mark of ‘Nihar’ which is a part of their advertisement belongs to the petitioner. It is therefore evident that the respondent was aware that the petitioner owns the particular mark. The petitioner claims that the pictorial impact of the advertisements demeans and disparages the petitioner’s product and the comparison between the products conveying to the audience that the product of the petitioner is ineffective has amounted to rubbishing their products. Further, the Petitioner claims that Dabur has provided false submissions in relation to having 50% of more efficacy. The respondent’s stand in the case was that its advertisement amounted to comparative advertisements and that it only constitutes commercial speech. It also claimed that the present advertisement was legitimate, honest, truthful, well substantiated and statistically proven. The court was of the view that the ad amounted to disparagement as there is a clear reference to the product of the petitioner and it did convey that the petitioner’s product is inferior and bad in comparison to the respondent’s product. Accordingly, it stated that the petitioned had a strong prima facie case in its favour and it also clarified that the present order of restraint is only limited to the impugned advertisements and is not restricted to any particular portion of the impugned advertisements but to the impugned advertisements as a whole.
METAx LLC. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
The Plaintiff states that META was founded in the year 2010 and the founder was dealing with various technologies including immersive and experiential ones, augmented reality, virtual reality and extended reality who was widely known and respected in the particular industry. With regards to the mark META, it is claimed that the Plaintiff has continuously used the term “META” as part of a composite mark since 2010 and has been commonly referred to as “Meta” in trade and commerce. Further, it is also claimed that it adopted a distinctive META logo which comprises of a stylized M symbol followed by the term META. Presently it accuses Facebook of violating its fundamental IP rights by adopting the META mark ignoring the prior knowledge of the Plaintiff’s brand and mark. Presently, the Plaintiff has initiated a suit before the District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking permanent injunction and damages.
Manolo Blahnik wins decades-long trademark battle
The brand had won a 22 year long legal battle, which now grants it the path to the Chinese market which was barred for about 2 decades. The brand initiated a suit after one of its competitor’s registering itself as Manolo Blahnik and the same being approved by the Chinese bodies as the system follows a first-come-first-served basis as far as registrations were concerned. Presently the Chinese courts have ruled in favour of the brand and it states that will continue to vigorously protect its trademarks worldwide.
Should Youtube’s Copyright Claim system be changed?
After the false Copyright strike and take down of the Lofi Girl’s video, many people including the team of Lofi Girl state that the present claim system has huge potential to be exploited and used against legitimate creators. Copyright strikes are basically reporting systems through which users can hold any creator who uses their intellectual property without their permission. According to the system if a channel receives three copyright strikes YouTube may take down/terminate the video or the channel. The team suggests that the platform employs a manual review process on the Copyright claims that they receive and require a user to prove that the particular content violates their copyright before initiating any kind of action.
Quinta Brunson and ABC Sued for alleged Copyright Infringement
The creators of the show Abbott Elementary which created history garnering 7 Emmy nominations have been hit with a copyright infringement by writer and actress Christine Davis, who claims that the premise of the show was taken from her script ‘This School Year’ which was written back in 2018 and copyright was registered for the same in the year 2020. The reliefs claimed are damages of an unspecified amount and demands that the creators- Brunson and ABC turn over all profits they made from the show.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiff initiated the present suit claiming permanent injunction restraining the infringement of its trademarks. The Plaintiff owned and registered the mark LULIFIN in respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations for humans and veterinary use in the year 2008. It claims that the products bearing the said mark have been in continuous use since 2008. It is stated that in the year 2021, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant has been using the mark LUFIN which was deceptively similar to its mark for identical pharmaceutical preparation. The Court was of the opinion that the mark of the Defendants is phonetically and visually similar to mark ‘LULIFIN’ of the Plaintiff and stated that prima facie it was convinced that the use of the two marks for the same pharmaceutical preparation is likely to cause confusion. Presently, the Defendant has submitted before the Court that it would not be contesting in the matter and that it is willing to suffer an injunction in respect of the mark. Further, the Defendant also submitted that it was willing to pay a sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs towards damages to the Plaintiff.
IPO awards patent for Instrument for Therapeutic Emesis
An advanced automated system or instrument for Therapeutic Emesis was developed with the object of making the process involved in the therapy simple and convenient. A team of inventors and the President of the Board of Ayurveda, National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) have been granted with the patent. This technology is equipped with monitors for monitoring of vital data of patients during the procedure and the commercialization aspect of the technology is also being discussed about to make the same available in hospitals across the country.
Lurn Inc. v. Ms Teamlease Edtech Limited
The Plaintiff owns and adopted the mark LURN in the year 2001 in respect of offering online and offline training courses in relation to business education which target entrepreneurs, executives, etc. and had also registered a domain name containing the mark LURN. It is stated that the Defendant uses the mark LURNINGO in respect of online research and education. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant’s mark is identical and the services provided by the Defendant are also identical to that of the Plaintiff, thus there was a chance of confusion between the classes of customers who may be availing their services. In the previous order, an ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the Plaintiff, which has now resulted in a settlement. According to the said settlement, the Defendants have acknowledged the Plaintiff’s ownership for registrations in the trademark ‘LURN’ and the logo and has undertaken not to use the mark LURNINGO or its variants in any form. It has also assured that it would cease use of the impugned mark within a period of 45 days and shall remove the same from its website, mobile application and social media platforms. Further, it also agreed that it would withdraw its trademark application for the mark LURNINGO and has also agreed to destroy any material bearing the impugned mark.
The Burnett v. Burnett Battle
According to a previous order, the Defendant Burnett Homeopathy Pvt. Ltd. was restrained from manufacturing and selling, offering for sale, advertising or promoting the impugned trademarks DR. BURNETT or any other mark or trade name which is either identical to or deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s marks. The Plaintiff has presently complained of non-compliance of the order as the use of the impugned trade name was being continued by the Defendant. The Defendant had provided further undertakings in relation to restraining from the usage of the impugned mark in the due course of business and the Court has ordered destruction of goods bearing the impugned mark and that the Defendant though free to use the premises on destruction of goods, shall remain bound by the interim orders of the Court as also his undertakings.
Provident Housing Ltd. v. Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd.
The present appeal was initiated by Provident Housing Ltd. following the previous order restrained the Appellant from using its trade mark/name. It claims that it has been using the marks Provident Central Park and Provident Park Square since 2018. The Respondent in return stated that it has been using the mark Central Park since 1999. In 2019, the Respondent had filed a suit for infringement of trademark against the Appellant seeking a permanent injunction. The Appellant takes a stand in the present case that the Respondent acquired registration of the trademark CENTRAL PARK on the basis that the same are unique labels and not on the basis of any distinctiveness acquired by prolonged use and that the term is generic. The court was of the opinion that the mark of the Appellant was deceptively similar to that of the Respondent and it was further clarified that nothing stated in the previous order or the present order ought to be construed to mean that the Respondent has any exclusive right in regard to the use of the words CENTRAL PARK.
Usha v. Wsha
In the case of Usha International Limited v. Tarun Arora, the Plaintiff had initiated a trademark infringement suit seeking cancellation of trademark registration for the mark WSHA in Class 7 in respect of sewing machines and parts thereof, which were identical to the goods of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed that the usage of a nearly identical mark by the Defendant amounted to infringement of its trademarks as well as copyrights and was seeking permanent injunction against such unauthorized usage. Accordingly, the cancellation petition was accepted by the Registry and an ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the Plaintiff. Presently, the court has granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and as far as the damages are concerned, since the Defendant agreed for cancellation of its mark immediately upon the filing of the present suit no damages were awarded to the Plaintiff.