[ad_1]
Is there a distinction between parody and satire? – A post on the different positions by Indian and US Courts. A post on the Delhi HC’s possibly wrong interpretation in equating design with trade dress and another on the trademark renewal notices: a lifeline or potential loophole? This and much more in our weekly roundup of our blog posts, case summaries, and top IP developments in the country and the world. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Exploring the Parody-Satire Distinction in light of the Kunal Kamra Saga
Is there a distinction between parody and satire? Judicial intervention in creating a distinction between parody and satire has caused greater confusion, leading to various inconsistent rulings in the US. On the other hand, India adopts a simpler balancing test based on various factors. Kevin Preji and Vishno Sudheendra discuss this question in light of the different positions of the courts in India and the US, keeping the Kunal Kamra-T-series copyright controversy as the case study.
Crocs Ruling: Misinterpreting Design vs Trade Dress Rights
The distinctive shape of Crocs clog is at the centre of an IP controversy with the Delhi HC ruling that the shape of a product will be enough on its own to support both design infringement and passing-off claims. Shailraj Jhalnia takes a look at the judgement and highlights how the Court might have wrongly equated design with trade dress.
Trademark Renewal Notices: A Lifeline or a Potential Loophole for Expired Trademarks?
In Rakesh Kumar Mittal v. Registrar of TM, the Delhi HC held that a trademark cannot be removed solely due to expiry of the marks’ registration, the issuance of a Form O-3 notice under Section 25(3) being mandatory. Explaining the judgment, AkshayAjayakumar argues that applicants must also exercise due diligence and cautions against lenient renewals, noting the risk of cluttering the register, creating legal uncertainty, and overburdening the Registry.
Delhi HC Orders ₹290 Cr Interim Deposit In A Patent Dispute
A pre-decree deposit of ₹290 crore has been ordered by the Delhi HC against a Korean telecom equipment manufacturer. Ganesh Prasad explains the Court’s rationale and looks at some of the other previous decisions where the courts have directed for such an interim relief.
Other Posts
Budweiser’s One-Second Ads: A Legal Examination of Copyright
Budweiser’s ‘One-Second Ads’ campaign that challenges viewers to identify a song by listening to just its first second has raised a sharp legal question: can such musical one-second fragments trigger copyright infringement, mainly when used deliberately and commercially? Sharing his thoughts on the controversy, Ganesh Prasad analyses it from the lens of originality, protectability of fragments, and market substitution.
Yamaha v. Trademark Registrar: Key Takeaways from the BHC Ruling
Yamaha’s ‘WR’ mark was rejected by the TM registry based on the reason that it was similar to Honda’s registered WR-V mark. The Bombay HC, however, stepped in to save the day by ordering to advertise the mark before acceptance, as underlined in the proviso of Section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act. Anureet Kaur explains how the Registrar erred in non application of Section 20(1) leading to the rejection of the trademark.
Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatments invites you to a webinar on the issues of access to medicines in the backdrop of US-India Free Agreement negotiations. For more details, please check their invitation in the link above.
Case Summaries
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors vs Verizon Venture Advisors Llp & Anr on 7 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
A trademark infringement suit was filed before the Delhi High Court by Verizon Trademark Services LLC and affiliated Plaintiffs against Verizon Venture Advisors LLP and another, seeking a permanent injunction. The Plaintiffs contended that the defendants had infringed upon their well-known and registered trademark VERIZON. The Plaintiffs had discovered in December 2017 that the defendant had registered an LLP under the name Verizone Venture Advisors LLP. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement. They observed that the defendants use was unauthorised as they continued to use the name despite repeated notices. It held that this deceptive similarity would cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ brand. Further, the Court held that the mere fact that the defendants business was inactive did not legitimise the infringement.
Reliance Retail Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 7 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, which is a subsidiary of Reliance Industries, had launched a beauty brand named Tira. They discovered in May, 2025 that fraudsters were impersonating Tira representatives to solicit payments from customers using the Tira trademark via calls, WhatsApp, and UPI platforms. The Delhi HC granted an ex parte interim injunction in favour of Reliance Retail which restrained these unknown fraudsters from misusing its trademark to defraud any consumers through impersonation and fake promotional schemes. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. Further, they recognised the public interest involved and the risk of irreparable harm. Therefore, the Court ordered the blocking of several WhatsApp accounts, UPI IDs, and phone numbers.
The Plaintiff, Mohan Meaking, owner of the registered trademark “Old Monk Coffee” rum, sought an injunction against the defendant for selling a coffee-flavoured rum under the deceptively similar mark “OLD MIST”. The Court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the similarity could cause public confusion. Finding the balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff, the Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendant from selling the infringing product.
Srinivas Jegannathan v The Controller of Patents on 01 July, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The appellant challenged the Controller’s refusal of a patent for a pharmaceutical composition combining three ingredients (Ceftazidime, Tazobactam, and Linezolid) on grounds of obviousness. The High Court, in an appeal under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, set aside the Controller’s order. It held that the order was “bereft of any reasoning” as it failed to explain why a person skilled in the art (PSITA) would combine the three ingredients when no single prior art disclosed the complete combination. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration based on the original claims, also rendering the objection under Section 59 irrelevant.
LT Foods Limited v Murli Flour Mills P Ltd on 09 July 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, owner of the well-known and registered trademark ‘DAAWAT’ for rice, filed a suit against the defendant for trademark infringement and passing off for using the identical mark ‘DAWAT’ and a similar logo for selling ‘Jeera’. The Court found a strong prima facie case, noting the defendant’s dishonest intent to deceive consumers by copying the identical mark and its curvaceous style. Citing the need for urgent relief, the Court granted an exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2, CPC, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark.
The Petitioner asked for cancellation of the trademark “BADAL” in favour of Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd., on the grounds of fraudulent assignment and ownership. The Court held that the trademark had been in continuous use since 1945 and the petitioner had not offered good evidence to prove fraud in the assignment deeds. Notwithstanding the Respondent’s default in filing the reply, the Court pointed out that serious allegations such as fraud have to be supported by cogent evidence, which was not available. The Court thus dismissed the petition for rectification/cancellation, observing that the factual points in dispute must be addressed via trial. The registered trademark “BADAL” continues to be valid and renewed on behalf of the Respondent.
Pocket FM Private Limited vs Mebigo Labs Private Limited on 10 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff by putting on air series/ episodes with identical/ deceptively similar titles/ storylines on its online platform Kuku FM. The allegations by the Plaintiff pertained to 5 series wherein the defendant allegedly copied the title as well as heavily borrowed content. The Court directed the defendant to disclose the details of the number of episodes of each of the five impugned series, along with revenues generated further restraining from launching any new episode(s) of any of the aforesaid till the next date of hearing.
The Plaintiff instituted a suit for copyright infringement in four cinematographic films originally belonging to Mr. G.N. Velumani, whose rights were assigned to Devi Films and then vested in the Plaintiff by way of amalgamation. The 1st and 3rd Defendants, legal heirs and assignees of Velumani, asserted rights in the films, and this led to the filing of the suit. The High Court, following substituted service and ex parte proceedings, determined the Plaintiff’s ownership by documentary evidence and struck out the Defendants’ claims. The action was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff with costs against the 1st and 3rd Defendants.
Prime Diamond Tech & Ors. vs Sonani Jewels Pvt. Ltd. on 7 July, 2025 (Gujarat High Court)
The issue involves access to confidential trade secret information and evidence obtained by a Court Commissioner in a copyright infringement action relating to proprietary technology. The Trial Court gave both sides limited access to sealed evidence and commission reports, but both sides refused to share each other’s trade secrets. The Appellate court overturned the Trial Court order granting such access, stating that trade secrets must not be divulged even to counsel of the opposing party. The Commercial Court was instructed to proceed with the suit expeditiously, maintaining confidentiality and deciding pending applications on merit.
Asociación De Productores De Pisco A.G v Union of India & Ors on 7 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
A writ petition was filed by Asociación De Productores De Pisco A.G which is a Chilean trade association before the Delhi High Court. The petitioners challenged the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board along with the registration granted to the geographical indication Pisco in favour of Peru under Class 33 for alcoholic beverages. The petitioner had argued that Pisco is also a geographical indication for a region in Chile. This was based on the argument that it has been associated with a traditional Chilean alcoholic beverage of the same name for a very long period of time. Further, they contended that the registration of Pisco exclusively in favour of Peru without any acknowledgment of a competing Chilean claim was an arbitrary action violating principles of natural justice. The Court acknowledged that the claim over Pisco has been disputed throughout history. It held that the GI registration granted to Peru could not be considered an absolute and had to reflect the possibility of competing claims under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Hence, the impugned decision was quashed and the court directed the GI Registry to re-examine the registration of Pisco after a due hearing to the petitioner.
The instant case concerned an appeal challenging the refusal of the patent application which related to an oral insulin formulation. The application had initially been denied by the Deputy Controller on the basis of lacking any inventive step and patentability. The appellant however argued that the order of denial was arbitrary and that it suffered from serious procedural lapses. They contended that essential scientific data and expert evidence were ignored. Further it was submitted that the Deputy controller had conflated the standards under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) as they had erroneously required proof of therapeutic efficacy as opposed to synergistic activity. The Court agreed and held that the impugned order failed to consider relevant expert materials and that it did not furnish adequate reasoning for rejecting the application remanding the matter to a different officer for fresh adjudication.
Bhalla Sports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises on 3 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Court allowed a petition to cancel the respondent’s trademark ‘SOFT TOUCH’. Bhalla Sports proved prior and continuous use of the mark since 2001, predating the respondent’s use from 2003. As the respondent failed to appear, the petitioner’s claims were deemed admitted. The Court reaffirmed that prior user rights override registered rights and ordered the cancellation of the respondent’s trademark.
Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Pvt. Ltd. vs. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd on 4 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court upheld an injunction against the appellant’s use of the mark ‘Liv-333’, finding it infringed Himalaya’s registered mark ‘Liv.52’, used since 1955 for a liver tonic. The Court ruled that ‘Liv’ was an essential, non-generic part of the coined mark ‘Liv.52’ and that adding a number did not distinguish the marks sufficiently. It held that trademark infringement is determined by mark-to-mark comparison, not packaging, pricing, or drug classification. The Court found Rajasthan Aushdhalaya’s adoption of ‘Liv-333’ dishonest and dismissed the appeal, while issuing notice only on the issue of costs and damages.
Dolby International AB & Anr. vs. Lava International Ltd. on 10 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the Plaintiff’s patents. Relying on the two-step test for establishing infringement of SEPs set out in Intex v. Ericsson, the Court held that the defendant’s device implements the suit patents standards. The defendant had stated that their devices implement the standard but do not infringe the suit patents, however, failing to disclose any alternative technology adopted by them. The Court ordered the defendant to deposit a pro tem sum of INR 20.08 crores.
Albemarle Corporation vs. The Controller of Patents on 7 July, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal against the refusal of Albemarle’s Indian Patent Application No. 2897/DELNP/2012. Though Albemarle did not contest the original refusal on merits, it submitted amended claims limiting the invention to a process for cleaning polyurethane foam. The Court held such amendments permissible under Section 59 of the Patents Act, as they narrowed the scope without adding new matter. The case was remanded to the Patent Office for fresh examination based on the amended claims, to be completed within six months.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Neha, Shailraj, Sumit and Yohann for the case summaries.)
[ad_2]
Source link