[ad_1]
The Great Indian Cricket Festival (aka IPL) is in the IP news with the BCCI facing a trademark dispute over naming its AI dog. The BCCI has also demanded an IPL-centric podcast to remove certain images and logos used in their video content. Add to that – posts on a missed opportunity to clarify Section 3(b) by the Cal HC and the IPO, and the technically all over the place CRI jurisprudence in India. Not to forget – we have begun accepting applications for the SpicyIP Summer School, the deadline to apply is May 15. Here’s a roundup of our blog posts, case summaries and top IP developments in the country and the world this week. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
ITC vs Controller of Patents: A missed opportunity in clarifying Section 3(b)
Calcutta HC in ITC vs Controller had set aside an order from the Patent Office which had ostensibly refused the grant for a nicotine/tobacco-related patent application under Section 3(b). The HC held that the IPO cannot cite new documents in its final rejection order, not raised in the FER, additionally also venturing into discussing section 3(b). Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan, in this post, critiques both the Cal HC order and the IPO’s rejection of the patent.
The State of CRI Jurisprudence in India – “Technically” All Over the Place
Noting the vast interpretative fragmentation in judicial opinion on Section 3(k), Swaraj Barooah, Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan Yogesh, Byadwal and Anushka Dhankar have charted out these differences and distinctions in the form of a flow chart, as well as text in their submissions to the Patent Office for feedback on the 2025 Draft CRI Guidelines. See the charts and submissions in this post.
Other Posts
BCCI Faces Trademark Dispute Over AI Dog Named ‘Champak’
The IP in IPL seems to be manifesting itself this year with the BCCI involved in another tussle, this time on the receiving end of a trademark dispute. The BCCI has been dragged to the Court by the publisher of the popular children magazine “Champak” over adopting an identical name for their AI robot dog. Although the Delhi HC has issued notice in the case, as per media reports it seems like the plaintiff has made a glaring omission of not adding Section 29(4) in their plaint! Sonisha Srinivasan discusses the dispute over “Champak” and why the omission on part of the plaintiff could lead to an unfavorable result for them.
Fair Dealing or Foul Play? Copyright Claims in An IPL Breakfast Show
The Indian cricket festival, aka IPL is the latest to make copyright headlines with the BCCI demanding the removal of images and logos used in the video content of The Grade Cricketer podcast. The cricket board also demanded that the podcasters change the name of their “The Big IPL Breakfast” show. Sonisha Srinivasan discusses the development and whether the use by the podcast comes under fair dealing!
Comments Invited for Draft Guidelines on Similar Biologics
CDSCO has invited comments on the draft version of the Revised Guidelines on Similar Biologics by June 5. Interested stakeholders can share their comments on [email protected]. To know more about the draft guidelines, read the post.
Case Summaries
Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Digital Cable Network on 7 May, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court, in a copyright infringement suit by T-Series, granted a permanent injunction and awarded notional damages against an unauthorised cable operator for public broadcasting songs. The Court upheld ownership under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, permitted admissibility of digital evidence under Section 65B, and found infringement of unrebutted recordings. However, the damages were limited due to insufficient proof of the subscriber base.
The plaintiff sought grant of temporary injunction against the defendants for infringement of copyright work of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner and is engaged in the business of broadcasting the Premier League football matches across the world. The defendants allegedly made different matches available to be streamed online through their app. The Court held that a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff as the defendants use the veil of technology to conceal their true identities and abuse by using the protected works of the plaintiff. The Court restrained all such websites and apps to stream premier league matches.
N.T. Bloomfield Enterprises vs. Rameshwar Dutt Singh on 24 April, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The Court struck down a copyright infringement claim against a former employee due to lack of admissible evidence. The confidentiality agreement, an important document, was inadmissible as it was unstamped according to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. The Court stated that mere exhibition of a document does not prove its contents. Without proof of prior employment or deception, no relief was granted.
Nike Innoate C.V vs. Kotton Club on 2 May, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Nike was granted an interim injunction against Kotton Club which used Nike’s popular swoosh logo and its brand name on its products. Being an evident case of trademark infringement and an evasive response to Nike’s takedown order gave Nike a strong prima facie case. The Court held that such unauthorized use risks brand dilution and loss of consumers.
M/s Zine Davidoff vs. Union of India on 22 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court restored Davidoff’s trademark after it challenged the IPAB’s removal of its “DAVIDOFF” trademark for non-renewal. It held that the Trademark Registry failed to follow due process under Section 25 of the Trademarks Act and Rule 64 with the non-issuance of the Form O-3 notice.
The interim application pertained to the contention that the only obligation upon the defendant was to communicate to any operator organizing events in any part of premises of defendant No.1-Club to take licenses from the applicant/plaintiff for communicating sound recordings in which the applicant claims copyright. The applicant were seeking modification of the order dated 01.10.2024 and to give a specific direction to defendant No.1 to ensure that when any third party operator organizes any event in the premises of the said defendant, it will ensure that licenses are obtained before permission is granted for organizing such events and that in any event, defendant No.1 itself also shall not communicate the sound recordings, in which the applicant claims copyright, without first obtaining licence. The Court thereafter holding the applicant’s contention as justified modified the order to the above-mentioned extent until further orders.
Sanjay vs. Karan Johar And Ors. on 7 May, 2025 (Bombay High Court)
The appeal was filed against the order of a single judge of the Court. The respondent (original plaintiff) had filed an application for interim injunction before the single judge bench seeking to restrain the appellant from using his name (Karan Johar) together or in parts in the title of the cinematographic film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” / ”Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar”. The Court noted that the respondent having earned considerable goodwill, has the economic right to commercially exploit the same as per his discretion. The Court therefore did not interfere with the injunction order passed by the single judge.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
(Thanks to Hruthika for the case summaries.)
[ad_2]
Source link