+91 44 28120000

Call Us for an Appointment

 

IPR News

Featured in this section are a selection of articles on various topics, both of legal and non-legal nature.
  • IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 11TH SEP – 17TH SEP

    DIPALI SIKAND AND ORS v. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. A temporary injunction prohibiting Samsung India and one Story Experiences from using the trademark “CONCIERGE,” which is being used by the Concierge conglomerate made up of Lesconcierges Services Pvt. Ltd. and Club Concierge Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., was issued by a civil court in Bengaluru on September 13th. Dipali Sikand, the founder of the plaintiff company, asserts ownership of the “CONCIERGE” trademark from May 2016.According to the claim, the plaintiff company created the ‘Presiden...

  • IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 4TH SEP – 10TH SEP

    INVESTMENT FIRM METACAPITAL SUES META FOR INFRINGEMENT Investment firm Metacapital Management LP sued Meta Platforms Inc in Manhattan in federal court on Wednesday, alleging that the Facebook parent company’s use of the name “Meta” to provide financial services would cause customer confusion and violate its trademarks. Metacapital has also asked the court for damages of at least $60 million, the same amount Meta Platforms paid last year to acquire the trademark assets of Meta Financial Group, a regional bank. The investment firm has been using their name since 200...

  • IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 28TH AUG – 3RD SEP

    SONY MUSIC INITIATES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT LAWSUIT AGAINST TRILLER Sony sued the platform seeking damages as the application failed to pay the license fees agreed upon back in March 2022 after which it considered that their deal was terminated. Whereas, the platform still allowed sharing of music owned by Sony in the Application which Sony claims to have contributed to Copyright infringement. It is pertinent to mention here that the platform has already been in disputes especially in relation to payments and licenses, with a number of companies including the Universal g...

  • IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 21ST AUG – 26TH AUG

    ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY V. AMAZON RETAIL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS The plaintiff is a book publishing company and had filed a lawsuit seeking permanent injunction against third party sellers in the e-commerce website of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that pirated versions of the book, “the Law of Torts by Dr. R.K. Bangia”, was being sold in the e-commerce website by many sellers thereby committing copyright infringement. The plaintiff had claimed that the copyright of the book was bought by them from the author by an assignment deed executed in August, 1968 and after the death of the au...

  • IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 14TH AUG – 20TH AUG

    FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. The respondent company Sanash Impex Pvt. Ltd have procured the authorized rights to sell the cosmetic products of a Czech based company ‘DC DERMACOL’ in India . A FIR was filed against Flipkart by the complainant for trademark infringement of their mark ‘DC DERMACOL’ by unauthorized resellers who were selling fake products in Flipkart and Amazon. The complainant also alleged that this act was committed by them in collaboration and connivance with Flipkart, thereby accusing Flipkart of enabling the sale of fake DC DERMAC...

  • IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 7TH AUG-13TH AUG

    DFM FOODS LIMITED v. CHANDEL STORE & ORS. The plaintiff is the owner of the registered trademark of ‘CRAX CURLS’ and ‘CURLS’ which is a type of corn-based snack launched in December 2016. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant even though changed their trademark from ‘CURLS’ TO ‘KURVY’, the packaging of the same, both before and after name change is deceptively similar with that of the plaintiffs. The Court held that the plaintiff has prima facie case in their favor because customers can easily be confused and cheated since the goods are of low price. Ther...

  • IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 1ST AUG-6TH AUG

    Special drive for disposal of IP Disputes Marking the 75th anniversary of India’s independence the Government of India has launched the ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’. As a part of the same, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks has taken an initiative to run a special drive for disposal of IP disputes wherein parties are encouraged to dispose pending opposition and rectification cases and parties who have already settled their cases amicably are called upon to report to the same to the Registry of Trademarks. The public notice also states that...

  • IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 25TH JULY- 30TH JULY

    Mondelez India Foods Pvt Ltd And anr v. Neeraj Food Products Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (previously Cadbury India Ltd.) and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Limited filed a suit against the defendant for trademark infringement of their product “CADBURY GEMS” or “GEMS”.  The Delhi High Court on 26th July 2022 gave the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to pay Rs. 10 Lakhs as damages to Cadbury and the actual costs in the amount of Rs. 15,86,928 after noting that the company had incurred significant costs for the litigation in a case involving...

  • 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 t...

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

    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 defendant...