IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 9th OCT – 15th OCT
ALLERGAN INC AND ANR. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND ANR.
The Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks has received criticism from the Delhi High Court on October 12 for failing to notify the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization of the filing of two entities’ opposition to the registration of international trademarks within the time frame required by the Trademarks Act. The order passed by the Controller General was contested by the two petitioners, who had filed oppositions in response to publication of the international registration of the trademarks. The petitioners made the argument that because they followed the opposite method outlined in Section 21 of the Act, they cannot be punished for the Registrar of Trademarks’ mistake. The impugned orders indicated that due to specific technical and administrative issues, a provisional denial of trademark registration could not be transmitted to WIPO within 18 months of the date of notice of international registration
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORP VS HEC PHARMA CO,
Novartis lost again on October 13, but it hasn’t given up the fight after last month’s Supreme Court victory in its Gilenya patent case. Novartis’ appeal for a stay of a lower court’s order rejecting a significant Gilenya patent was denied by the Supreme Court. If generic versions of the best-selling multiple sclerosis medicine are permitted to hit the market, the Swiss pharmaceutical company estimates that it will lose more than a quarter billion dollars in sales this year. The problem began in 2016, when the Chinese biotech company HEC Pharma submitted a request for the authorization of a generic version of Gilenya. It received clearance in 2019, but Novartis swiftly filed several lawsuits against the business, claiming that several of its patents will expire in 2027.
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. LOOKPART EXHIBITIONS AND EVENTS PRIVATE LIMITED
The court was dealing with a lawsuit brought by Phonographic Performance Limited, a corporation that provides music performance and communication licences. The company brought the case against an event management business that offers DJ services at social gatherings like weddings. Dr. Arul George Scaria, who was designated as an independent expert on the legal issue of music in marriages, informed the Delhi High Court that, in accordance with Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957, a reasonable balance must be achieved between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of users or society through limitations and exceptions and when someone performs music as part of any of the marriage related festivities, they merely do so on behalf of the people who hired them (in other words, people who are getting married), who in turn have a specific user right/ privilege under S. 52(1)(za) of the Act to use music/ sound recordings as part of marriage related festivities added the expert.
WEISNER V. GOOGLE LLC
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Southern District of New York’s decision to grant Google’s motion to dismiss Weisner’s patent infringement lawsuit on October 13. The appellate court found that Weisner had credibly alleged an inventive concept in patent claims relating to techniques for digitally recording a person’s physical activities, passing the Alice/Mayo test for Section 101 . In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Todd M. Hughes noted that Weisner’s second amended complaint implicitly acknowledged that the location data-incorporating methods used by the invention are ordinary and conventional and that the claims do not address a problem inherent to computers.
TRIUMPHANT INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION PVT LTD V. TIMES COACHING CENTRE)
The Delhi High Court on October 12th granted a temporary injunction in favor of the coaching center Triumphant Institute of Management Education (T.I.M.E.) in a trademark infringement case, prohibiting one “Times Coaching Center” from using its registered name for educational services. The defendant in the current lawsuit was accused of passing off and trademark infringement by T.I.M.E for using the word “TIMES” as part of its trade name for educational services. The Court determined that “TIME” and “TIMES” are phonetically identical and deceptively similar after comparing the two. The court further ruled that the defendant used the word “TIMES” dishonestly and with the intent to mislead its affiliation or relationship to the plaintiff to the general public.
SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT. LTD. v. MTRM GLOBAL PVT. LTD
On October 11, A Ghaziabad-based business has agreed to rename its stores from “Chaiops” to “ChaiApps,” after the leading tea café chain “Chaayos” filed a complaint with the Delhi High Court over alleged trademark infringement. Sunshine Teahouse, whose outlets went by the name “Chaiops,” filed the lawsuit in September, seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting Sunshine Teahouse from infringing upon and using its trademark without authorization. Sunshine Teahouse claimed to have been using the trademark “CHAAYOS” since 2012 and obtained registration for it in 2017. The company’s stores offer chai in more than 12,000 different variations, and its tea and other products may be ordered online. The Court then asked the attorneys for both parties if they would be satisfied if the Defendant made the changes to its current centres, physical boards, stationery, etc. by 1 April 2023. The court also stated that the change would be instant for any new outlets that would be opened.
SAMSUNG AND TSMC FACES INVESTIGATION BY USITC
The US International Trade Commission (USITC) is looking into charges of patent infringement concerning chips and mobile devices containing those processors against Samsung and TSMC. In response to a complaint submitted in September by Daedalus Prime LLC of Bronxville, New York, the USITC announced that it will launch an inquiry. The complaint claims that the importation into the US of semiconductor devices and mobile devices incorporating such chips, which purportedly infringe on patents asserted by the business, violates section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The USITC’s notice of investigation on October 14 states that the allegedly infringing chips were produced by Samsung using its 14nm and smaller process nodes and by TSMC using its 16nm and smaller process nodes. Additionally, the investigation will focus on mobile devices like smartphones, tablets, and smart watches that contain the allegedly infringing chips.
THE ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION V. LYNN GOLDSMITH
The case, which concerned whether Andy Warhol’s unauthorized silkscreen copies of Goldsmith’s photographs of pop star Prince, which the Andy Warhol Foundation later licenced to Condé Nast for a 2016 article on Prince, constituted a fair use of Goldsmith’s photo, was heard at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 11. According to the witnesses, the Supreme Court Justices were very interested in the arguments and asked several questions about how to apply the language from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music regarding the new meaning or message created by a transformative work that tips factor one of the fair use test in favour of finding fair use.
APPLE GETS PATENT FOR AUTONOMOUS CAR
Apple was formally given a patent on October 11 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that covers methods for phoning or accessing an autonomous car from a user device. The patent describes how an iPhone may be used to contact an autonomous car in the future and communicate with it to open the door to environment control. The patent for an autonomous taxi service operated by Apple. A variety of methods for engaging with an autonomous car are described in an Apple patent. With the use of these strategies, the user device can serve as a central interface for controlling many aspects of operating an autonomous vehicle. The user device is additionally used by the vehicle to verify that the user who is using it is the same user who sent the transit request.
PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS FIXO INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
On October 10, in a case involving trademark infringement, the Bombay High Court has given Pidilite Industries Limited, the company that makes the adhesive Fevi Kwik, ad-interim relief. The company that makes the adhesive Fixo Kwik, Fevi Kwik, filed the lawsuit against Fixo Industries. The defendant has been prohibited from using the plaintiff’s registered mark when selling, producing, dealing, retailing, exporting, distributing, or advertising the product Fixo Kwik by the bench led by Justice Manish Pitale while the case is still being decided. The court noted that the mark being used by the defendants appeared to be confusingly similar to the registered trademark of Pidilite. The court ruled, “There is sufficient material placed on record to show that the mark allegedly being used by the defendants would have the tendency of causing confusion in the mind of a purchaser. The use of the word ‘Kwik’ and the sentence ‘one drop instant adhesive’, along with the image of a globe, create deception. There is a likelihood of a consumer being confused when the defendants’ product is placed before him”