TRADEMARK
EX PARTE AD INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER AGAINST AQUAKIND LABS
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction order against Aquakind Labs LLP restraining them from using the trademark or trade name "Aquakind". The Court stated that "Aquakind" is deceptive similarity to Mankind Pharma Ltd.'s trademark "MANKIND/KIND and its other "KIND" formative trademarks. The Court held that Mankind's trademark and its "KIND" formative trademarks have garnered goodwill and reputation in the market owing to their continuous, extensive and long-standing use; thus, using any deceptively similar mark would amount to dilution of Mankind's well-known trademark as well as infringement and passing off.
(1) Mankind Pharma Limited vs. Aquakind Land LLP & ors., CS(COMM)958/2024, decided on 25.10.2024
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC GRANTS RELIEF TO MOTI MAHAL
The Delhi High Court recently granted temporary relief to Rupa Gujral, daughter of the founder of the Moti Mahal restaurant, by issuing an order restraining the use of the "MOTI MAHAL" trademark. Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled that the defendants must cease advertising, selling, or promoting their business under the name "MOTI MAHAL" until the case is resolved. The plaintiffs, who retained exclusive rights to the trademark after transferring ownership of the Moti Mahal restaurant, argued that the defendants were using the identical "MOTI MAHAL" mark without permission, attempting to capitalize on the brand's well-known reputation. The defendants, however, denied using the mark and stated they had removed related listings from their website and social media platforms. The court's order followed the failure of pre-litigation mediation, while separate arbitration proceedings over a partnership deed are ongoing. The plaintiffs also cited previous court orders that had restrained others from using the "MOTI MAHAL" trademark.
(1) Rupa Gujral & Ors. v. Sandeep Kohli & Ors. decided on 04.11.2024, CS(COMM) 478/2024
TRADEMARK
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OF MOUNT EVEREST BREWERIES LTD
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued an injunction against two beer companies, restraining them from reusing old glass bottles bearing the embossed trademarks "STOK" and the Panda device, owned by Mount Everest Breweries. The Court found that the defendants were engaging in malpractice by selling their products in these bottles and affixing their own labels, thereby infringing on Mount Everest Breweries' trademarks and engaging in passing off. The Court also upheld the Commissioner of Excise's order dated November 7, 2020, which prohibits all liquor and beer bottling units, including the defendants, from using old glass bottles with embossed trademarks for refilling and selling liquor. However, the Court set aside the portion of the order prohibiting the reuse of bottles after the embossed logos have been removed or scratched, leaving this matter to be decided by the appropriate authority in future proceedings.
(1) Mount Everest Breweries Limited versus MP Beer Products Limited, WRIT APPEAL No. 683 of 2024, decided on 12.11.2024
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS INOX RELIEF, ORDERS REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON COPYRIGHT CERTIFICATE
The Delhi High Court recently ruled in favor of INOX India, granting relief in its appeal against specific remarks in its copyright registration certificate. INOX challenged a clause that imposed restrictions on the use of its technical drawings, specifically stating that copyright would cease if the work was applied to an article more than 50 times. INOX argued that this limitation was unjustified, as the drawings were technical and not subject to the Designs Act, 2000. Represented by Khaitan & Co., INOX successfully argued its case before Hon'ble Justice Mini Pushkarna. The Court ordered the Registrar of Copyrights to amend the certificate and remove the disputed remarks, with a corrected certificate to be issued within four weeks.
(1) Inox India Ltd. v. Registrar, Copyrights, CA(COMM.IPD-CR) 1 of 2024, decided on 06-11-2024
COPYRIGHT
OPENAI WINS LEGAL BATTLE AGAINST PUBLISHERS IN DMCA LAWSUIT OVER AI TRAINING DATA
OpenAI won a legal victory on November 7, 2024, when a U.S.
District Court judge dismissed a copyright case filed by
independent publishers Alternet and Raw Story. The publishers
alleged that OpenAI violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA) by scraping thousands of articles and stripping them of
copyright management information (CMI) to train its AI models. They
sought statutory damages, arguing that OpenAI's AI,
particularly ChatGPT, used their content without proper
attribution.
Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal
standing to bring the case, as they failed to prove that OpenAI had
used their specific content or that the training was harmful. While
OpenAI argued its training practices were protected under fair use,
Raw Story intends to appeal the decision and may file an amended
complaint. Legal experts are divided, with some believing the case
could have broader implications for AI and intellectual property
law. The ruling primarily focused on the plaintiffs' inability
to prove direct injury but left open the possibility for other
legal arguments against OpenAI. The outcome could have significant
ramifications for similar lawsuits and may limit the types of
intellectual property cases federal courts can hear.
(1) Raw Story Media, Inc. v. Openai Inc., Civil Action 1:24-cv-1514-CM-OTW, (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2024)
COPYRIGHT
GEMA SUES OPENAI OVER ALLEGED USE OF COPYRIGHTED SONG LYRICS IN CHATGPT TRAINING
GEMA, the German music rights organization, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted song lyrics without permission from its 95,000 members. This follows GEMA's recent launch of an "AI Charter" outlining ethical principles for AI use, and an earlier proposal for royalties from AI platforms. The lawsuit, filed in Munich, claims that ChatGPT generates song lyrics when responding to prompts, and aims to challenge the idea that AI platforms can use copyrighted content without authorization. GEMA positions this as a test case for broader legal issues surrounding AI and copyright, potentially influencing AI regulation in Europe, where the AI Act is being implemented. OpenAI has expressed a willingness to engage in discussions with creators and trade organizations, stating they are reviewing the allegations. The Delhi High Court recently ruled in favor of INOX India, granting relief in its appeal against specific remarks in its copyright registration certificate. INOX challenged a clause that imposed restrictions on the use of its technical drawings, specifically stating that copyright would cease if the work was applied to an article more than 50 times. INOX argued that this limitation was unjustified, as the drawings were technical and not subject to the Designs Act, 2000. Represented by Khaitan & Co., INOX successfully argued its case before Hon'ble Justice Mini Pushkarna. The Court ordered the Registrar of Copyrights to amend the certificate and remove the disputed remarks, with a corrected certificate to be issued within four weeks.
(1) https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2024/11/13/gema-openai-lawsuit/
PATENT
UK COURT RULES AGAINST PFIZER IN HAEMOPHILIA GENE THERAPY PATENT DISPUTE WITH UNIQURE
Pfizer faces a setback in its plans to launch its hemophilia
gene therapy drug in the UK after the UK High Court rejected its
attempt to invalidate a patent held by uniQure. The patent, EP 3
581 650, covers a method for producing a "Factor IX
polypeptide mutant" for treating hemophilia B, which forms the
basis of uniQure's drug *Hemgenix*. Pfizer's gene therapy
product, *Beqvez* (formerly *Durveqtix*), was approved by the
European Medicines Agency in July 2024, but has not yet launched in
the UK.
Pfizer had challenged the patent, claiming it lacked an inventive
step, but the court upheld the validity of EP 650 and found that
Pfizer's product infringed it. Pfizer has indicated its
intention to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, the European Patent
Office (EPO) has indicated in its preliminary opinion that the
patent is likely valid, with an oral hearing scheduled for October
2025. A ruling is also expected in parallel Dutch proceedings later
this month. The case could have significant implications for
Pfizer's market plans in the UK and Europe.
(1) http://Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)
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.
