TRADEMARK
GOOGLE WINS UK TRADEMARK LAWSUIT OVER YOUTUBE "SHORTS"
Google successfully defended itself against the trademark lawsuit filed in the UK, with the High Court ruling that YouTube's "Shorts" platform does not infringe on the trademark of Shorts International, a British company that runs a short film channel. Shorts International had filed the lawsuit, claiming that Google's use of the term "Shorts" caused confusion with its own brand. However, the court found no likelihood of consumer confusion and ruled that Google's use of "Shorts" would not damage the distinctiveness of Shorts International's trademark. The case was dismissed, and neither party has yet commented on the decision.
TRADEMARK
PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF SGS PHARMA
Delhi District Court granted a permanent injunction against SGS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement and instructed them to immediately stop the manufacturing and marketing of its drug "Diclozen Relief". It cited deceptive similarity with the Laborate Pharmaceuticals packaging of the drug "Labdic Relief". SGS argued the word "relief" is a generic word and cannot be monopolized by the Laborate. The Court held Laborate's product packaging closely resembled SGS's packaging, and compared the packaging of the two products. The Court found the style of writing, combination of words, colour combination to be identical, which could mislead consumers and damage the established brand's goodwill.
COPYRIGHT
UNIVERSAL MUSIC FILES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT VS BELIEVE & TUNECORE
Universal Music Group (UMG) and its subsidiaries, including Capitol Records and ABKCO Music, have filed a major copyright infringement lawsuit against Believe and its distribution platform, Tunecore. The lawsuit, filed on November 4, 2024, alleges that Believe has knowingly distributed infringing copies of popular songs by artists like Kendrick Lamar and Lady Gaga. These tracks, including their altered versions, have been distributed through platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Spotify, enabling Believe to profit from unauthorized content. Universal Music Group claims Believe has failed to prevent piracy and wrongfully collected royalties due to the Plaintiff. The lawsuit seeks at least $500 million in damages, a permanent injunction, and other remedies, including the destruction of infringing copies and recovery of legal fees.
PATENT
DELAWARE JUDGE UNCOVERS PATENT TROLL ACTIVITY
In a patent case, a Delaware District Judge Colm Connolly uncovered three companies—Mellaconic IP, Backertop Licensing, and Nimitz Technologies—engaging in patent trolling tactics. Patent trolls, formally known as non-practicing entities (NPEs), hold patents not to develop products but to file lawsuits on infringing competitors and/or seek settlements. Judge Connolly identified IP Edge, a patent assertion firm behind hundreds of such lawsuits, as the "de facto owner" of the patents. The judge referred the attorneys to the SC of Texas' Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee' for engaging in "unauthorized practices of law in Texas."
PATENT
WESTERN DIGITAL FINED $316 MILLION FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Western Digital Corporation (WDC) has been hit with a $316
million fine after a California federal jury ruled in favor of SPEX
Technologies, in a long-running patent infringement case. The case
dates back to 2016, and is centered on allegations that Western
Digital's self-encrypting hard drives—such as the
Ultrastar, My Book, and My Passport—violate patents related
to data encryption, originally filed by Spyrus (now owned by SPEX).
The patents, issued in the late 1990s, protect encryption processes
used to secure data between devices. Despite the jury's
decision, Western Digital has conveyed its intent to appeal,
asserting that its products do not infringe the patents. This
ruling follows another significant legal setback earlier in 2024
when the company was ordered to pay $262 million for a separate
patent dispute over hard drive storage capacity.
The ruling comes at a crucial time as Western Digital undergoes a
major company restructuring, splitting into two units—one
focused on hard drives, the other on flash memory. This
restructuring, slated for completion by mid-2024, could be impacted
by ongoing legal challenges. The case highlights the increasing
difficulties tech companies face in protecting intellectual
property, especially in the competitive storage sector. How Western
Digital navigates these legal issues will remain to be seen.
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.
