TRADEMARK
DELHI HC SKECHERS WINS TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE
In a recent trademark infringement case, the Bombay HC granted an interim ex-parte order in favour of Skechers, the well-known footwear and apparel brand. The Court held that Skechers successfully demonstrated proprietorship over its trademark, establishing a prima facie case showing the adverse impact that counterfeit products were having on its goodwill. Following the court's order, the Court appointed receivers along with the police and conducted a search and seizure operation across 15 locations spread across Nashik, Indore, and Delhi. The operation led to a seizure of a whopping 2,500 counterfeit products that were low-quality reproductions, closely resembling Skechers' shoes.
(1) Skechers South Asia Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v/s Wardrode & Ors Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 32860 OF 2024
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC ORDERS DELHI HC ORDERS AUCTION OF FORTIS TRADEMARK OF APPROX. RS.191.5 CRORE
The Delhi HC has ordered the public auction of the Fortis trademark as part of the enforcement of a Rs 3,500 crore arbitral award in favour of Japanese pharmaceutical company Daiichi Sankyo, against former Ranbaxy promoters Malvinder and Shivinder Singh. The trademark owned by RHC Healthcare Management Services Pvt Ltd, is expected to help offset the Singh brothers' joint liability, which now totals around Rs 4,900 crore. The arbitral award, originally granted by a Singapore tribunal in 2016, resulted from Daiichi's claim that the Singh brothers withheld critical regulatory information about Ranbaxy during its sale in 2008. Daiichi Sankyo had filed an application for the sale of the Fortis trademark after only a small fraction of the awarded amount was recovered. Despite initial objections, Fortis Hospitals Ltd and the judgment debtors ultimately did not oppose the auction, but suggested a valuation audit. However, the Court dismissed this request, instructing the Joint Registrar of the Court to proceed with the sale and report back upon completion
(1) Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited Vs Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors. O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016
COPYRIGHT
ERNAKULAM COURT ISSUES TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST 'MINNAL MURALI' SPIN-OFFS AND MERCHANDISING
A Kerala district court has temporarily barred the producers of Minnal Murali, along with Netflix India, from developing spin-offs, graphic novels, and merchandise related to the film's characters. This ruling came after the film's writers, Arun AR and Justin Mathew, filed a lawsuit claiming that their characters were being commercialized without their authorization. They argued that they hold exclusive rights to the characters they created for the 2021 Malayalam superhero film. While the writers emphasized that any commercial use of the characters would infringe on their intellectual property, the producers also maintained that they had the rights to expand the Minnal Murali franchise, including collaborations with companies like Amar Chitra Katha to create graphic novels and merchandise. The court favored the writers in its interim ruling, ordering a halt to all related commercial activities until a conclusive decision is reached on the matter.
(1) Arun AR & Anr v/s Weekend Blockbusters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors OS 23/2024
PATENT
APPLE WINS $250 PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE AGAINST MASIMO
International Apple's recent legal success against Masimo highlights a longstanding rivalry over wearable tech and health-monitoring capabilities. In October 2024, the jury awarded Apple a minimal sum of $250 after ruling that older versions of Masimo's W1 and Freedom smartwatches copied Apple's designs. While the monetary award was insignificant, Apple sought the verdict mainly to safeguard its intellectual property. The decision only affects discontinued models, allowing Masimo to continue selling its current smartwatch lineup, without restrictions and is part of a broader legal conflict between Apple and Masimo, focused on health-monitoring technology. In an earlier case, Masimo successfully argued that Apple's blood-oxygen sensor technology infringed on its patents, prompting the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to limit Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales, unless these features were removed. Rather than licensing Masimo's technology, Apple altered its U.S. products to comply with the ITC ruling. While both companies emerged with partial victories, this case emphasizes the growing competitive pressure in the health-tech space, where both Apple and Masimo aim to assert control over critical technological innovations.
(1) Apple Inc. v/s Masimo Corporation, 22-1891.
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.
