IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 27th NOV – 3rd DEC
Delhi HC stops Andhra company from using Kohinoor Seed Fields trademarks
The Delhi High Court on 1 December 2022, granted an ex parte ad interim order to an Andhra based company after the company has used the trade name deceptively similar to the plaintiff. In the present case, the Kohinoor Company, being a leading seed company, has put a non-exclusive contract with the defendant company for marketing and distributing their products. Further, the plaintiff has been selling transgenic BT cotton hybrid seeds, approved by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee, in the brand names of “SADANAND”, “TADAAKHA” and “BASANT” from 2014. Later, in October, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant has been advance booking for the seeds in the name of ‘VEDA SADANAND GOLD’, ‘VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD’ and ‘VEDA BASANT GOLD’. The Court thus observed that the use of impugned marks by the defendant would likely to cause confusion among the consumers. Thus, having said so, the Court granted interim order against the Andhra based company.
Adobe, Inc. v. Namase Patel
The Delhi High Court on November 29, 2022, imposed compensation of 2 crores to Namase Patel on the infringing the intellectual property rights of Adobe Inc., the second largest US based personal software company. Upon the use of the Plaintiff’s mark such as “ADOBE”, “PHOTOSHOP” and “SPARK”, by the defendant, the Adobe Inc. filed a suit against them. It is to be noted that the mark “ADOBE” was recognized as a well-known mark in the case of Adobe Systems Inc. v. Rohat Rathi,(2008) by the Court under Section 2(zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Further, the Court observed that the Defendant was habitually involved in cyber-squatting and infringing of domain names of various entities, in accordance with the orders of the National Arbitration Forum and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. On hearing the case, Justice C. Hari Shankar, issued permanent injunction to Namase pastel for cyber-squatting.
Delhi High Court passes ex-parte injunction against the release of ‘AJINOMOTO’ film
Following a complaint from a Japanese seasoning company that claimed violation of its 113 years old registered trademark “AJI-NO-MOTO”, which is largely used for its product, monosodium glutamate, the Delhi High Court on 29 November, 2022, blocked the release of the movie “Ajinomoto”. Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that the corporation has made a prima facie case in their favour and that if the restraining order is not granted, the company would suffer irreparable loss. The Delhi High Court, reiterated that the producers shall not release the film under the title “AJINOMOTO” or any film bearing an identical or misleadingly similar title or name in any format, i.e., cinema hall release, DVD/VCD release, release through OTT Platforms etc. until the next date of hearing. Further, the Court postponed the next hearing to be on December 12, 2022.
Sukam Systems Private Limited vs Lithium Power Energy Private
The Single judge bench consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar granted ex parte ad interim injunction to Sukam Systems private limited for its mark “Su-Kam” on November 1, 2022. Further, the defendant was prohibited from producing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any goods or services bearing the contested marks ‘Snow-Kam’. “Su-Kam” was a mark, owned by the plaintiff and has been in use for since 1998. Also, the Court observed that this Court has recognized the sole ownership of the mark “Su-kam” in the case of “Sukam Systems vs. Kunwer Sachdev (2019). Thus, the court declared that the deceptive similarity between the marks would certainly lead to confusion among consumer of average intelligence and imperfect memory, resulting in violation of the rights of the plaintiff.
Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh vs Imperial Cycle Mfg. Co.
The Ludhiana-based company was prohibited from producing cycles, motorcycles or any other goods, using the trademark “RALLIES” following a trademark infringement suit brought by the UK based Company to preserve it mark “RALEIGH” on 29 November, 2022. To be specific, the plaintiff operated a number of bikes and motorbike brands throughout Europe, including “RALEIGH” and was engaged in the manufacture and sale of bicycles. AS the Plaintiff Company was established in 1887, the word “Raleigh” was used all over the world for products like children’s bikes, motor bikes and mountain bikes. Thus, the court ordered the defendant to curb producing and promoting items with the mark “rallies” or any other mark that’s deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff’s both in physical and online mode.
Abhishek Gupta vs Vipin Jain
The Delhi High Court on 30 November, 2022, ruled that claims of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off are three distinct causes of action and merit separate issues to be framed, overturning the Commercial Court’s decision. Further, in this accordance, the Court rejected the Petitioner’s application to frame additional issues in the case. In addition to this, the Delhi High Court accepted that the Petitioner had delayed in filing the application for additional problems while framing these separate issues and assessed the Petitioner’s attorney Rs. 10,000 in fees.
M/S Jindal (India) Limited vs M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles
On 30 November 2022, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction, stopping the use of the mark ‘Jindal’. Further, the Defendant has been imposed an allegation that sale of its products bears similar marks ‘Jindal’ and ‘Jindal Rangoli’ to the plaintiff, resulting in both infringement of its registered trade marks. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff has shown a prima facie case in its favour and the failure to award an ex-parte injunction would result in irreparable loss. As a result, until the next hearing date, the defendant and any of its promoters, parties, or other representatives were prohibited from selling, offering for sale, advertising, or otherwise transacting business in connection with “Roofing Sheets and other sheets” or any goods using the trademark and copyright “JINDAL,” “JINDAL RANGOLI,” “JINDAL ROOFING SYSTEM,” or any other mark that is identical to or confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of the plaintiff.
M/S Nif Private Limited vs M/S Prashant Dairy
A permanent injunction was granted by the Delhi District Court on 1 December 2022 in a summary judgment against the use of the similar trademark “Namaste India”. Further, the plaintiff claimed that the use of an identical trademark by the defendant violated both the plaintiff’s registered trademark and copyright as well as the consumer’s trust by misrepresenting the plaintiff’s goods as those of defendant. After submitting a written statement, the defendant stopped showing upon in the Court. Therefore, the court issued the aforementioned ex parte ad-interim order after concluding that the defendant did not oppose the matter after filing the written statement.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. vs Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court, 30 November, 2022 declined to order a halt to the sale of medicines with the brand names “Nutriepic” and “Untercare”, which contains dienogest. In this present case, there are two issues at stakes, the first being the use of sensitive information, and the second being passing off. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, who wee its former workers had produced the competing product “Uttercare” utilizing trade secret belonging to the plaintiff’s products “Trimacare”. Additionally, it was claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff had entered the courtroom with unclean hands because it had concealed both the examination report from the Patents Office and Trademark Registry against its product “layercare” and “Trimacare” respectively. To conclude, the Court dismissed the case in accordance with the arguments put up by the defendant.
Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC vs Designarch Infrastructure Pvt.
On November 28, 2022, the Delhi high Court ordered the Registrar of trademarks to transfer 5 rectification applications to the same Court. Further, the present complaint concerns with the defendant’s use and registration of a deceptively similar mark “Burj Noida”, to be specific. The Court was informed that there were already 5 trademark rectification proceedings ongoing before the Trademark registry when the current case was instituted. Furthermore, the Court specifically stated that if the registrar has the power to transfer a matter to the High court, surely, the High court also has the power to direct the transfer of such matters to itself, especially where all other connected petitions, including petitions for passing off and rectification instituted by Jumeirah against Designarch, which are pending before the IPAB, already stood transferred to the High court.
Bennett, Coleman And Company vs E1 Entertainment Television , Llc
The Defendant’s mark “E!” was the subject of the rectification petition that the Plaintiff had filed. In an application submitted in opposition to the aforementioned petition, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff was not entitled to seek the correction of its mark because it was aware of its registration at the time of a prior suit. In light of this, the defendant claimed that the current rectification petition could only be filed after a preliminary problem regarding the legality of the defendant’s mark had been raised in the earlier suit. Further, on 28 November, 2022, the Court rejected the defendant’s opposition to the rectification petition, finding that the prior suit the petitioner filed, related to its mark “E Now” and the defendant’s use of similar marks “E! Now” and “E! News Now,” and that the defendant’s arguments regarding the registration of the mark “E!” did not expand the scope of that lawsuit.