IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 20th NOV – 26th NOV
In the battle over Vistara, Delhi High Court favours Tata Airlines
According to the Delhi High Court’s order on 22 November 2022, Justice Jyoti Singh granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction, curbing the use of the well-known trademark, “VISTARA” belonging to the Tata Airlines by a Karnataka based news channel. The trademark “VISTARA” has been declared as a well-known trademark by this Court in TATA SIA Airlines Limited vs. M/s Pilot18 Aviation Book Store & Anr. Further, the Judge took account of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff, owing the accolades and popularity bagged by them among the public for their website www.airvistara.com and the mobile app for booking.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries vs. DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The Forzest v. Folest case has rekindled the principles of public health, emphasized by the SC in Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited. On 22 November, 2022, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction following the usage of the trademark ‘FOLEST’ by the DWD Pharmaceutical Company which is likely to be resembling the trademark “FORZEST of the Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. This case also invoked the doctrine of “Clean hands”, when the defendant came up with the claim that they are the actual proprietors of the trade name ‘zest’, which was used by the plaintiff company for their medicines. The Court, finally imposed compensation to the plaintiff company, while upholding the interim order emphasizing on the public health. The Court further observed that the ensuing confusion caused by the products relating to the health, edible things, and anything which might cause harm to the public would be detrimental to the interests of the public and its regulation must be done in a stringent manner
Ad Wars: Delhi High Court Sends Parle, Britannia to Mediation, Restrains Re-Publishing Of Print Adverts against Parle-G
Parle Products Private Limited had filed a suit against Britannia Industries Ltd seeking permanent injunction restraining disparagement, infringement, unfair competition, etc. regarding a video advertisement and two print advertisements publicized by Britannia. The Plaintiff claims that Britannia was publicizing derogatory advertisement campaigns through television commercials, online broadcasts and Print media. It is also claimed that the Defendant’s advertisements reflects the Plaintiff’s product in bad light. This Ad war between the two giant multinational food industries was referred to mediation by Justice Prathiba M. Singh to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, on considering the fact that the Defendant was willing to amicably resolve the matter.
DS Confectionery Products Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Gupta and Anr
On 22 November 2022, the Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, over the usage of deceptively similar trademark to that of the plaintiff’s, by the defendant’s company. The plaintiff, having registered their trademark “pulse”, which was also recognized as a well know mark in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v. Mr. Akshay Singhal & Ors., CS(COMM) (2019), sued the defendant for infringing his rights over usage of a deceptively similar trademark, “PELSE” AND “PLUS++”. As the sounds are phonetically similar, the Court favored the plaintiff. The Court further stressed that mere addition of the sign “++” or deletion of the alphabet “E” from the trademark of the plaintiff, doesn’t amount to distinction. Adding on, the Court observed that when the product is an eatable, which are sold over the counters and not expensive, the colour scheme of the packaging plays an important role in the consumer making an initial choice and in enabling a discerning consumer to locate the particular brand of a manufacturer. Besides, the Defendant did not appear nor has filed a written submission causing the Court to pass a summary judgment in the matter.
Deere And Company & Anr. vs. Jitender Kumar Gaur & Anr. on 23 November, 2022
After the defendant neglecting the cease and desist order sent by the Deere and company regarding the infringement of their trademark “JOHN DEERE” and “TORQ- GARD”, the Delhi High Court ordered the defendant to pay a sum of 2 lakhs along with the costs of the suit. The Court further stated that the defendant in spite of ignoring the cease and desist notice, went on to expand the business from e-commerce to physical sales. Moreover, the trademark “JOHN DEERE” was adopted in the year 1837, with the ‘leaping deer logo’ and recognized as a well-known mark in the case of Deere & Co. & Anr. v. S. Harcharan Singh & Ors. under Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This trademark is used for products including consumer goods and accessories, indoor and outdoor home equipment, except agricultural equipment.
Bolt Technology OU vs. Ujoy Technology Private Limited
The Delhi High Court on 23rd November, 2022 ordered the defendant to put an end to the usage of the trademark ‘BOLT’, when the plaintiff sued the defendant for passing off their trademark, infringement of copyrights, rendition of accounts and other relevant reliefs. The Court observed that the business in which the trademark has been used is almost identical. Moreover, this Court previously had requested the parties to settle the thing amicably through mediation, however, it did not work out. Furthermore, the Bolt Technology highlighted that the number of downloads of the defendant’s app have raised from 10,000 to 50,000 during the pendency. Pursuant to insufficient board to hold a full hearing, the court listed the matter for hearing on 12th December, 2022 and ordered the Ujoy Technology to use its modified mark for future expansion.
Jagran Prakashan Limited vs. Telegram FZ LLC and Ors.
After the plaintiff instituted charges of non-compliance by the defendant, disobeying the Delhi High Court’s ad interim ex parte, which directed the defendant to reveal information about the users sharing and uploading the e-paper “DAINIK JAGRAN”, the Delhi High Court on 23 November, 2022, observed that the issue of disclosure of users is no longer res integra and has been well settled by the Bench consisting of in Neetu Singh and Another v. Telegram FZ LLC and Others, (2022). In the above-mentioned case, the Court observed that
“Indian Courts are competent to decide issues relating to infringement of copyright and the mere fact that Telegram is operating a messaging service in India which chooses not to locate its servers in India cannot divest the Indian Courts from dealing with copyright disputes or divest copyright owners from availing their remedies in Indian Courts.”
Adding on, Justice Nawin Chawla ordered the defendant, the instant messaging app, to comply with 2020 order allowing to disclose the basic subscriber information of the buyer involved in the uploading and sharing of pdf of Dainik Jagran newspaper.
Pharmaceutical company files FIR against two firms for copyright violation
A pharmaceutical company in Ashiyana has filed a F.I.R against two firms who are engaged in manufacturing and selling of bio products such as medicines and ointment, for use of the plaintiff’s product name with the intention of passing off their goods with the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, on 21 November 2022. Gopal Kishan Agrawal, Mudit Kumar Agarwal of the company and their staff were identified for violation of the Copyright Act and forgery and criminal breach of trust and tampering of official documents. Adding on, the coordinator of the pharmaceutical company submitted that “the company has got several medicines/ointments registered/trademarked from the medicine/drug department and has the right to sell these products by the company only.”
Twitter users post full movies, violates the social media’s copyright policy
Inspite of the issues arising from twitter post the takeover of twitter by musk, another one has added to the list. Twitter users have started to upload full length movies, violating the social media’s copyright policy. On November 19 and 20, the movie “Hackers”, “Need for Speed” and “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” were posted in consecutive tweets. According to Twitter’s copyright policy,
“Twitter will respond to reports of alleged copyright infringement, such as allegations concerning the unauthorized use of a copyrighted image as a profile or header photo, allegations concerning the unauthorized use of a copyrighted video or image uploaded through our media hosting services, or Tweets containing links to allegedly infringing materials.”
Subsequently, there was no official comment from Twitter, however, hours later, the uploaded movie “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” was removed. In such instance of copyright violations by the users in twitter, it could be hit with the U.S Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims if they aren’t handled promptly. Besides, as per report, a former Twitter executive has said that the “platform was at risk of breaking down through technical glitches as now there are significantly fewer employees to maintain the site”. Moreover, twitter has laid off around 3,500 twitter employees in the early November, and further given an ultimatum to many regarding their continuation of employment.
Two motions of Ericsson granted, while denying all for Apple
After a federal judge in Marshall, Texas concluded two days of pretrial proceedings on 22 November, 2022, a trial to determine the rate that Apple must pay Ericsson Incorporation for 5G patented technology used in iPhone is scheduled to start from December 5. The conflict between the parties is with regard to the fees for patents deemed essential by the European standard Organization. Companies that work together to develop standard essential patents promise to license them under “fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The pretrial was headed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the current chief judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. During the proceedings, he denied all of the motions of Apple for summary judgment, while granting two of Ericsson’s.