TRADEMARK
DELHI HC FINES INDIVIDUAL HEAVILY FOR INFRINGING TAJ HOTELS' IP RIGHTS
The Delhi HC recently exacted a fine of ₹15 lakh from a
man whose company infringed the trademark and copyright linked to
Tata's Taj Hotels. The court noted that the defendant, Manoj,
was using the trademark 'Taj', which is registered with the
Taj Hotels, to promote his own business, 'Taj Iconic
Membership.'
The court also noted that the defendant was continuously using the
logo, photographs, and other content available on Taj Hotel's
website and had spent huge amounts of money on designing,
advertising, and promoting the said marks.
The Court also mentioned that, in addition to infringing on
Taj's marks and photographs, Manoj committed criminal acts by
pretending to be the plaintiff and deceiving a jeweller into giving
him ₹51 lakh worth of hundred gold coins.
(1) The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs Manoj (CS(COMM) 683/2022 & I.A. 35307/2024.)
TRADEMARK
TRENDING TURKISH ATHLETE YUSUF DIKEC TRADEMARKS HIS POPULAR POSE
Yusuf Dikec, a Turkish shooter, became a viral sensation online
during the 2024 Paris Olympics due to his impressive nonchalant
stance, with his non-shooting hand casually placed in his pocket.
The pose ignited a craze of memes, likening it to fictional James
Bond, and various imitations appeared thereof, across different
realms.
Dikec's coach, Erdinc Bilgili, informed that the shooter has
applied to trademark his famous pose, inspired by many worldwide.T
he coach also revealed that the decision was prompted by multiple
unauthorized attempts to claim rights over Dikec's unique
posture.
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC PROHIBITS T-SERIES FROM USING 'AASHIQUI' TITLES'
On Monday, the Delhi HC prohibited T-Series from using the titles 'Tu Hi Aashiqui' or 'Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai' for an upcoming film, following an interim injunction in favour of Vishesh Films. The court recognized Vishesh Films' trademark rights over the 'Aashiqui' mark, which has gained recognition as a brand since the 1990 hit film and its sequel in 2013. Bhatt's company had earlier taken T-Series to court over Aashiqui 3 sequel plans. However, T-Series independently introduced a movie with a title resembling 'Tu Hi Aashiqui' or 'Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai'. Considering their prior work together, Justice Sanjeev Narula held, "Thus, neither party can exploit any rights in the films by excluding the other, and the defendant (T-Series) cannot be permitted to make a sequel, remake, or adaptation of the Aashiqui franchise, or create any third-party rights in respect of the same, without the plaintiff's (Vishesh Films) express consent."
(1) Vishesh Films Private Limited vs Super Cassettes Industries Limited (CS(COMM) 68/2024, I.A. 1797/2024.)
COPYRIGHT
PRACTICES APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS RULING AGAINST INTERNET ARCHIVE
An appeal court has confirmed a previous ruling that the
Internet Archive infringed copyright law by scanning and
distributing digital books without the publishers'
consent.
In 2020, four leading publishers, including Hachette Book Group,
HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random
House, filed a lawsuit against the Archive. They claimed that the
Archive had unlawfully provided free copies of over 100 books,
including works by Toni Morrison and J.D. Salinger. The Archive had
argued that it was protected by the fair use law.
In 2023, a U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan ruled in favour
of the publishers and issued a permanent injunction. On Wednesday,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pondered whether
the Internet Archive's lending program, known as the
"National Emergency Library," launched at the start of
the pandemic, was an example of fair use.
"Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well
as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude
the answer is no," the appeals court ruled.
(1) Hachette Book Group, INC., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., John Wiley & Sons, INC., Penguin Random House L.L.C., v. Internet Archive (Docket No. 23-1260, decided on September 04, 2024.)
PATENT
HIMACHAL HC DISMISSES PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH PRE-LITIGATION MEDIATION REQUIREMENT
The Himachal Pradesh HC dismissed a case of patents and design
infringement case, stating that the plaintiff's request for
interim relief was merely an attempt to avoid the pre-litigation
mediation requirement in Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act
and did not involve any urgent relief.
Section 12A under the Commercial Courts Act, specifies that a
lawsuit not seeking urgent relief cannot be filed until the
plaintiff completes the Pre-Institution Mediation process as
prescribed by rules set by the Central Government.
After reviewing the evidence and documentation in the case, Justice
Ajay Mohan Goel, sitting alone, stated in the court order that no
evidence was presented to suggest any urgency in the matter that
would justify circumventing the requirements of Section 12A.
(1) Novenco Building & Industry v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. & Another (OMP No.540 of 2024 in COMS No.13 of 2024.
PATENT
CAFC APPROVES ALICE STEP TWO INQUIRY AT STEP ONE STAGE
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
affirmed a district court's ruling that patent claims involving
"receiving metadata and organizing video content display based
on that metadata" are abstract. The CAFC also dismissed the
patent owner's claim that the district court wrongly analysed
an Alice step two inquiry during Alice step one. The opinion was
written by Judge Reyna.
BBiTV, the patent holder, filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the
Western District of Texas, accusing them of violating five patents
related to electronic TV guides. Four of these patents belong to
the same group and claim priority to U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026,
while one patent is independent but relates to similar technology
as U.S. Patent No. 9,973,825. In 2020, BBiTV filed a lawsuit
against Amazon for infringement, and Amazon moved for a summary
judgment stating that all claims were not eligible for patent
protection. The District Court concurred and awarded Amazon summary
judgment for both the '026 and '825 patents after
conducting individual analyses in accordance with Alice v. CLS
Bank.
(1) Novenco Building & Industry v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. & Another (OMP No.540 of 2024 in COMS No.13 of 2024.
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.