TRADEMARK
DHARMA PRODUCTION'S JIGRA GETS RELIEF FROM RAJASTHAN HC
In an interesting development, the Rajasthan HC has approved the
release of Alia Bhatt's starrer 'Jigra', after lifting
a previous stay imposed by a Jodhpur Commercial Court due to a
trademark infringement claim by Bhallaram Choudhary, an online
educator. Choudhary argued that he held the term "Jigra"
trademark under Class 41, which covers training and entertainment
services.
In its defense, Dharma Productions highlighted its trademark
registrations across various classes, excluding Class 41. They
argued that Choudhary's activities did not infringe trademark
laws and emphasized that the film's release would not violate
Choudhary's trademark. The court ruled and clarified that
Dharma Productions' naming of the movie 'Jigra' did not
constitute an infringement upon Choudhary's trademark
rights.
(1) Dharma Production (P) Ltd. v. Bhallaram Choudhary, 2024 D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2784/202
TRADEMARK
CALCUTTA HC PREVENTS UNAUTHORIZED USE OF "ARSALAN" TRADEMARK
Recently, the Calcutta High Court issued an interim order on
Tuesday, preventing biriyani sellers and restaurants from using the
trademark "Arsalan" with any prefixes or suffixes. This
decision follows a complaint from the owners of the Arsalan
trademark, which operates 11 outlets in Kolkata, including the
original one in Park Circus. The plaintiff has three trademarks
registered under the name and style of "ARSALAN",
comprising of two device marks and one-word mark.
The Court observed that the use of similar names, like "A1
Arsalan Biriyani," was intended to mislead the public and
create confusion about the origin of the food. Defendants nos.1 and
2 were directed by the court to block access to the websites and
mobile apps of the defendant nos.3 to 14 about the selling of
products of the plaintiff under the mark "ARSALAN" with a
suffix or prefix or any word, for the said business.
(1) R.A.A. Arsalan Enterprise Private v. Swiggy Limited & Ors on 5th October 2024 COM/37/2024, GA-COM/1/2024
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC RESTRICTS ARPITA AGRO FROM USING THE NAME 'POWRNYM'
The Delhi HC has prohibited Kolkata-based Arpita Agro from using the name 'POWRNYM' or similar names for their cleaning products. This interim ruling aims to prevent consumer confusion and safeguard ITC's trademarks 'NIMYLE' and 'JOR-POWR', as well as any trademarks from the 'NIM' family until the case is resolved. Arpita Agro had previously sold these trademarks to ITC for ₹100 crore. The company was involved in manufacturing and selling herbal floor cleaners under the 'NIMYLE' trademark and related names from 1996 to 2018. The court observed that Arpita Agro was misleading consumers by marketing products under the impugned mark 'POWRNYM', which could lead the public to believe that these products are associated with ITC and are merely variations of their registered trademarks.
(1) ITC Limited v Arpita Agro Products Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 8 October, 2024 CS (COMM) 698/2023
TRADEMARK
NEW DELHI DISTRICT COURT AWARDS RS.10 LAKH IN DAMAGES TO PMBI
In a significant ruling, the New Delhi DC has granted a permanent injunction against an organization in Bhopal for using the "Jan Aushadhi Sangh," which closely resembles the registered trademark "Jan Aushadhi" of the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya JanaushadhiPariyojana ('PMBJP'). The ruling requires the firm and its owners to stop using the "Jan Aushadhi" name and mandates them to surrender all materials bearing the trademark to the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Bureau of India ('PMBI') for destruction. Additionally, the court awarded ₹10 lakh in damages to PMBI. This ruling helps maintain the integrity of the Jan Aushadhi brand, which operates 13,800 Jan Aushadhi Kendras nationwide, ensuring consumers can access genuine, affordable medications.
COPYRIGHT
MOHANLAL SUED BY GERMAN-BASED AUTHOR
George Thundiparambil, a non-resident Indian author based in Germany, has filed a lawsuit against the creators of the 3D film "Barroz, Guardian of D'Gama's Treasure" in the Ernakulam District Court, seeking a prohibitory injunction against the release of the film. He alleges that the film infringes the copyright of his novel "Maya." In July 2024, George sent a legal notice to Mohanlal, Jijo Punnose, T K Rajeev Kumar, and Antony Perumbavoor, asking them not to release the film until his copyright issues were resolved. The filmmakers have responded by denying any claims of infringement.
PATENT
CLAIM MAPPING IS IMPORTANT IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES
In a significant ruling, the Delhi HC dismissed F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG's request for an interim injunction against Zydus Lifesciences, which was accused of infringing Roche's patents for the biosimilar drug "Sigrima," related to Pertuzumab, a treatment for HER2-positive breast cancer. The Court emphasized that Roche failed to provide adequate "claim mapping," which is crucial for establishing patent infringement. Roche and Genentech Inc. claimed Zydus' product infringed their patents covering both composition and formulation but lacked the necessary evidence to establish a direct connection, hence the Court dismissed the request for an injunction due to a lack of evidence in claim mapping. Justice Saurabh Banerjee emphasized that a patentee cannot obtain a temporary injunction based solely on patent registration. The Court observed that Roche's patents were still pending and granting an injunction would conflict with the Patents Act, 1970. The Court could not rule against Zydus due to the absence of claim mapping, emphasizing that patentees must provide clear evidence of infringement to seek temporary relief in patent disputes.
(1) F-Hoffmann – LA Roche AG & Anr v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited CS(COMM) 159/2024 , decided on 9th October 2024
PATENT
GSK SUES MODERNA FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Recently, GlaxoSmithKline ('GSK'), the British drug maker has filed lawsuits against Moderna in Delaware Federal Court, alleging that the company violated several patents related to lipid messenger RNA vaccine formulation technology with its COVID-19 vaccine, Spikevax, and RSV shot mRESVIA. GSK alleges that Moderna is marketing these products without proper licenses and seeks reasonable royalty and damages for the alleged infringement. GSK emphasized its commitment to protecting its intellectual property and expressed willingness to license the patents on commercially reasonable terms to ensure patient access. In response, Moderna has acknowledged the lawsuits and intends to defend itself.
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.
