TRADEMARK
DELHI HC ORDERS META TO BLOCK WHATSAPP ACCOUNTS MISUSING MARK
The Delhi HC has recently issued an ex-parte temporary injunction against unidentified individuals using the trademark "Master Trust," which belongs to Master Capital Services Limited, a company providing secondary market broking services. Master Capital alleged that these individuals created fraudulent WhatsApp groups that misappropriated their trademark, leading to financial losses for the complainants. They also used images of Master Capital's director to imply a connection falsely. The court ordered Meta, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology ("MeitY"), and the Department of Telecommunications ("DoT") to block WhatsApp accounts associated with these individuals, who are misusing the mark and misleading the public into investing funds. The court felt that there exists a prima facie case for a permanent injunction and recognized that potentially irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The injunction would prohibit the defendants from using the "Master Trust" trademark or impersonating the director on any platform. The court further ordered HDFC Bank & Induslnd Bank to permanently freeze the unidentified individuals' bank accounts.
(1) Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. vs. John Doe & Ors. (CS(COMM) 832/2024, I.A. 40513/2024, I.A. 40514/2024, I.A. 40515/2024 & I.A. 40516/2024)
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC ORDERS CANCELLATION OF J&K COMPANY'S TRADEMARK
In an interesting news, the Delhi High Court has cancelled the "MOLTY" trademark registered in the name of Jay Kay Coir Foam Pvt Ltd, a Jammu and Kashmir bedding manufacturer. Master Enterprise Pvt Ltd, is a Pakistani company that has used the MOLTY trademark since 1981 and registered it in Pakistan in 1990 and which trademark was recognised across the border in India. The Pakistani company argued that it had established a significant brand in India, supporting this claim with invoices and sponsorships of cricket events. On the other hand, the Indian company had been using the impugned trademark since 1995 and filed for registration in 2003. Despite not doing business here, the court decided in favor of Master Enterprise, acknowledging its well-established reputation in India. The court further observed that Master Enterprise's application from 1997 demonstrated a clear intent to register "MOLTY" in India and that the Indian company was likely aware about Master Enterprise's mark and did not adequately explain the origins of its use of the mark.
(1) Master Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v. Jay Kay Coir Foam Pvt Ltd. & Anr C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 599/2022
TRADEMARK
BAJAJ AUTO SUED BY SG CORPORATE MOBILITY
Bajaj Auto has been sued by SG Corporate Mobility in the Delhi High Court for trademark infringement on the word mark "FREEDOM." SG Corporate Mobility, the parent company of the Indian two-wheeler brand LML, argued that the name "FREEDOM" has been associated with its "LML Freedom" motorcycle since 2002 and was assigned to them in 2021 after being transferred from LML. They further claimed that Bajaj is unlawfully using the trademark "Freedom" for its new Bajaj Freedom CNG motorbikes. Such infringement damages SG Corporate Mobility's goodwill. Through its sister company, LML Emotion Pvt Ltd, SG Corporate Mobility has recently focused on re-launching the LML brand and planning to launch new scooters and motorcycles under the 'Freedom' label.
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HC GRANTS INJUNCTION AGAINST NAVRAJ INFRATECH
Delhi HC has ordered Navraj Infratech Private Limited to not use architectural drawings and renderings from BPTP Limited's Amaario project in its advertisements and other ventures. Countrywide Promoters Private Limited, a subsidiary of BPTP, filed a copyright infringement case and accused Navraj of misappropriating its copyrighted artistic works. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction that prohibits Navraj from infringing BPTP's copyright, including misrepresenting the original works as their own and engaging in unfair trade practices. Navraj is specifically ordered to stop publishing, reproducing, or distributing BPTP's architectural materials. BPTP states that these renderings are protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, and cannot be used without permission. The lawsuit seeks not only damages but also a permanent injunction to prevent further copyright violations.
(1) Countrywide Promoters Private Limited v. Navraj Infratech Private Limited CS(COMM) 812/2024, I.A. 39873/2024, I.A. 39874/2024, I.A., 39875/2024, I.A. 39876/2024 & I.A. 39877/2024
PATENT
TAKE–TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE INC. SUED BY INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
International Business Machines ('IBM') has filed a lawsuit in Delaware Federal Court against Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. ('Take-Two'), a video game maker for infringing its patents related to internet technologies, including online advertising, virtual worlds, and user authentication. The claim particularly focuses on popular games like NBA 2K, Grand Theft Auto, and Red Dead Redemption. IBM states that both parties had discussions about the infringement since 2021, with IBM seeking a licensing agreement, which Take-Two ignored. IBM has recently pursued similar legal actions against other companies and has a recent victory against Zynga, which was acquired in 2022 by Take-Two. The company has also settled disputes with Rakuten and Chewy, and it recently secured a $45 million jury award against Zynga for similar issues.
PATENT
PFIZER & BIONTECH INVALIDATED TWO CUREVAC PATENTS
Pfizer and BioNTech successfully challenged two patents held by CureVac at London's High Court. This lawsuit was initiated in September 2022, on patents related to messenger ('mRNA') technology, which is essential for their COVID-19 vaccine. This ruling is part of the ongoing litigation in the U.S. and Germany involving Pfizer, BioNTech, and CureVac. Additionally, Pfizer and BioNTech are involved in a separate case against Moderna concerning competing COVID-19 vaccines. Recently, a High Court ruling upheld one of Moderna's mRNA patents, stating that Pfizer and BioNTech's Comirnaty vaccine had infringed it. Pfizer and BioNTech can appeal against this decision.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
