+91 44 28120000

Call Us for an Appointment

[language-switcher]
 

trademark infringement Tag

SURANA & SURANA > Posts tagged "trademark infringement"

Understanding Trademark Infringement and Intermediary Liability: Legal Perspectives in the Digital Age

P. Saranya - Senior Associate, Intellectual Property Practice Introduction: In the modern era of e-commerce and digital platforms, intellectual property rights face unprecedented challenges, especially concerning trademark infringement and intermediary liability. Trademark infringement and intermediary liability are two critical issues at the intersection of intellectual property law and digital commerce. Accordingly, under the e-commerce platforms and online marketplaces, the dynamics of trademark protection and the responsibilities of intermediaries have evolved significantly. This article provides an in-depth analysis of trademark infringement, the concept of intermediary liability, and the legal frameworks governing these areas in the digital age. Trademark Infringement: Trademark infringement occurs when a...

Continue reading

TRADE DRESS WARS- AN ANALYSIS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING TRADE DRESS IN THE LIGHT OF LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

Rakshana MK - Associate, IP Practice There are various factors that contribute to consumers associating to a particular product, service or the company providing such goods and according to reports, packaging of products has the ability to influence the purchasing public. “Things do not pass for what they are, but for what they seem. Most things are judged by their jackets.” – Baltasar Gracian[1] Isn’t it important that these jackets, id est. the packaging of such products, which plays such an important role in business, contributing to determination of choices of customers be accorded utmost protection and the infringement or the unauthorized usage...

Continue reading

IPR NEWS – JULY

Overstock to rebrand as Bed Bath & Beyond after buying brand's intellectual property In a transformative acquisition, online retail giant Overstock has revealed plans to undergo a complete rebranding, adopting the name of the renowned home goods retailer Bed Bath & Beyond after purchasing the brand's intellectual property. This strategic move aims to bolster Overstock's market position and broaden its product offerings. By aligning itself with Bed Bath & Beyond's well-established reputation for quality home essentials and leveraging its name recognition, Overstock seeks to tap into a loyal customer base and enhance its competitive edge in the retail sector. Barbie Vs BRBY Mattel...

Continue reading

AN ANALYSIS ON PROTECTION OF FILM TITLES UNDER TRADEMARK LAW

AN ANALYSIS ON PROTECTION OF FILM TITLES UNDER TRADEMARK LAW

RAKSHANA. MK Associate, Surana & Surana International Attorneys INTRODUCTION: Unlike William Shakespeare’s famous quote "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” names and titles, especially in the entertainment industry have proven to be as important or unique, in line with that bestowed upon the script, the cast and crew or any other aspect of a work. With specific reference to the film industry, the title of a movie is what promotes and popularizes the work to reach the public and its audience, thus holding utmost importance comparative to any other part of...

Continue reading

EXPEDITED EXAMINATION AND PROCESSING OF TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS – A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Balaji P L.L.M., Principal Associate, Surana & Surana International Attorneys Introduction The examination of trade mark application is the pivotal stage in the process of ascertaining registrability of the applied mark by the trade mark offices around the world, which starts with the issuance of an office action/examination report with the list of objections raised by the trade mark offices or a letter of acceptance of the trade mark. Subsequently, the application may go through re-examination, advertisement, oppositions, hearings, etc., before reaching the stage of registration. The time period taken by the trade mark offices, for completing the first examination of application and...

Continue reading

IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 6th NOV – 11th NOV

CONDE NAST v. DRAKE Conde Nast, the owner of Vogue magazine, on November 7 has filed a lawsuit against Drake and 21 Savage for using the Vogue trademark without authorization to promote their new album "Her Loss." Conde Nast claimed that the rappers' promotional campaign was "entirely" based on the unauthorized use of Vogue trademarks and false claims that they would appear on the magazine's upcoming cover with the "love and support" of longtime editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, including to their more than 135 million social media followers. Conde Nast said that the defendants also produced a fake issue of Vogue that...

Continue reading

IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 30th OCT – 5th NOV

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER V. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS The Delhi High Court on November 3 has granted Louis Vuitton Malletier, a French luxury fashion brand, Rs. 20 lakhs in fees in its trademark infringement case against Club Factory, a Chinese e-commerce platform that was outlawed in India in 2021. Louis Vuitton's attorney informed the court on November 3 that the plaintiff only wishes to pursue costs in the case, despite the fact that the lawsuit was officially decided on March 24 when a permanent injunction was granted against the Chinese website and it was now scheduled for ex-parte...

Continue reading

IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 16th OCT – 22nd OCT

K. N. GOVINDACHARYA  vs SECRETARY GENERAL & ORS On October 17, the Supreme Court issued notice in response to a petition asking for instructions to protect the Court's copyright over video recordings of court proceedings that are live-streamed on websites like YouTube. The application also aimed to stop live-stream material from being used for profit. In the application, it was requested that the live-streaming closely adhere to the ruling in Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC) v. Secretary General &Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 639. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Chief Justice UU Lalit made up the panel that heard the...

Continue reading

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...

Continue reading

IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 2nd OCT – 8th OCT

QUALCOMM v. APPLE Despite the fact that the two tech titans' legal battle over three smartphone patents had been resolved, the U.S. Supreme Court on October 3, once more declined to consider Apple Inc.'s request to resurrect the case. In 2017, Qualcomm filed a lawsuit against Apple in federal court in San Diego, alleging that the company's iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches violated many mobile technology patents. The lawsuit concerned a larger international conflict between the two digital behemoths. At the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Apple contested the legality of the patents at...

Continue reading

IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 25th SEP – 1st OCT

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC V. MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP An U.S. appeals court ruled that a patent held by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. for its diabetes medications Januvia and Janumet is valid, rejecting a challenge to the patent made by generic manufacturer Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. The Court did not agree with Viatris Inc.'s Mylan's argument that the invention was invalid because to an earlier patent and other publications. On September 29, the Federal Circuit concurred with the board that the patent was valid. It denied Mylan's claims that the earlier works Mylan identified would have rendered Merck's patent apparent. LIVE LAW...

Continue reading

IPR NEWS – WEEKLY UPDATES FROM 18TH SEP – 24TH SEP

INDIAMART INTERMESH LIMITED v. MR SAMEER SAMIM KHAN  & Ors. The petitioner IndiaMart filed a suit for permanent injunction against the fraudulent website https://india-mart.co/ who was fraudulently offering jobs under the plaintiff’s name. The IndiaMart is a registered trademark and also the registered domain www.indiamart.com way back. The High Court observed that “Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for ex parte ad interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff. If the activities of Defendant are not nipped in the bud, irreparable injury would be caused not only to the Plaintiff, but also to public at...

Continue reading

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 'President Club' loyalty programme for Samsung as part of the 'CONCIERGE' service with the intention of...

Continue reading

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 group. GI REGISTRATION OF KASHMIR NAMDA AND GABBA...

Continue reading

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 author, the...

Continue reading

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 DERMACOL cosmetics and charging the resellers...

Continue reading

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...

Continue reading