TRADEMARK
LEGO FILES FOR TRADEMARK RECTIFICATION
The famous Lego Toy Company has filed a petition before the
Madras HC u/s 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking
rectification of the Trademark register against LEO Foods, a
company that is engaged in the business of manufacturing
confectionery products under its registered trademarks in class 30,
being “LEGOCUTEHEART” and
“LEGOCOFFYBOND”.
The Court held that although the Parties' trade channels are
different, the goods of both the Parties cater to children. On
close observation of the marks, the Court further cited
‘identical adoption' of the mark by LEO Foods,
including the style and to some extent even the colors. In view of
this, the Court held that the reproduction or adoption of
LEGO's trademark indicates dishonest and malafide intentions
on the part of LEO Foods, and called for removing the infringing
marks.
(1) LEGO Juris A/S v. Gurumukh Singh & Anr., decided on 13.09.2024, (T)OP(TM)Nos. 190/2023.
TRADEMARK
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES RESTRAINS JHAMPA FROM INFRINGING THEIR TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT
The Bombay High Court has issued an interim injunction against
the use of the “JHAMPA” brand, finding it deceptively
similar to the well-known “CAMPA” trademark owned by
Reliance Retail Limited. The court ruled on October 24, 2024, that
the defendants, Md. Sirajuddin and Beauty Bibi must cease using
“JHAMPA” in connection with their beverage products,
which Reliance claimed exploited the reputation of its
“CAMPA” brand in the non-alcoholic beverage market.
Reliance argued that “JHAMPA” was visually,
phonetically, and structurally similar to “CAMPA,”
causing potential consumer confusion.
Justice R.I. Chagla noted that such actions could harm both
Reliance's brand and public trust. The injunction prevents
the defendants from manufacturing, distributing, or advertising
products under the “JHAMPA” mark until further hearings
are scheduled for November 27, 2024. Further arguments are expected
from both parties at the subsequent hearing, with the injunction
being in place to maintain the status quo in the interim.
(1) Reliance Retails Ltd. v. Md. Sirajuddin and Beauty Bibi, COMIP (L) NO: 32031/2024 decided on 24.10.2024.
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC GRANTS RELIEF TO BRITANNIA IN ‘GOOD DAY' TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE
The Delhi HC granted an interim injunction in favor of Britannia Industries Limited. Britannia, a leading food and confectionery company, filed the suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition against Desi Bites Pvt Ltd. Britannia claimed that Desi Bites was using its well-known trademark “GOOD DAY” on products like soan papdi and papad, which is a clear attempt to capitalize on the goodwill of Britannia's brand. The “GOOD DAY” mark has been associated with Britannia's biscuits and confectionery since 1986 and is registered under Class 30. It was also recognized as a well-known mark by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2020.
The court ruled that Britannia had shown a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Justice Pushkarna emphasized that the mark “GOOD DAY” is distinctively associated with Britannia's products, and the defendants' use of a similar mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers, misleading them into believing the products were linked to Britannia. The court also noted that the defendants' actions appeared to be an intentional attempt to exploit Britannia's established brand. The defendants were also ordered to remove any infringing listings from their websites and e-commerce platforms but were permitted to sell their products only under alternative branding that does not resemble “GOOD DAY.”
(1) Britannia Industries Ltd. vs Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd & Ors. decided on 07.11.2024, CS(COMM) 983/2024.
COPYRIGHT
SUMMONS ISSUED TO OPEN AI BY DELHI HC FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
The Delhi High Court issued a summon to Open AI, the creator of
ChatGPT, in response to a copyright infringement suit filed by ANI
news agency. ANI alleges that ChatGPT has falsely attributed news
content to the agency, potentially leading to the spread of fake
news and public disorder. While the court did not pass any
injunction in favour of ANI, citing the complexity of the case, it
appointed an amicus curaie to assist in the matter.
ANI argued that the misuse of its content could harm its reputation
and credibility, potentially leading to significant losses and
damage to its brand image. The agency also contends that there is a
public interest angle to the case, as the incorrect attribution of
political content could have far-reaching consequences including
the erosion of public trust in news media and the potential for
social unrest. The matter is listed for further hearing in
January.
(1) https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/openai-chatgpt-delhi-high-court-summons-news-agency-ani-copyright-infringement-plea-fake-news-wikimedia-foundation-11732000483630.html
PATENT
META HIT WITH PATENT INFRINGEMENT COMPLAINT BY INGENIOSPEC OVER VR EYEWEAR DESIGNS
Pfizer IngenioSpec, an electronic eyewear company, filed a
complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) accusing
multiple tech firms, including Meta, of infringing three of its
patents related to electronic eyewear. Meta responded by filing a
declaratory judgment complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Nov. 12, asserting that its Meta
Quest headsets do not infringe IngenioSpec's patents.
The ITC investigation, initiated after IngenioSpec's
complaint, targets Meta's Quest 3 and Quest 3S headsets,
alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,310,296 and
12,078,870. IngenioSpec, which specializes in electronic eyewear
technologies, seeks cease and desist orders and a limited exclusion
order to prevent the importation of accused products. Meta argues
that its headsets, which feature a headband structure, do not
infringe IngenioSpec's patents, which are aimed at more
traditional glass designs.
(1) https://www.law.com/therecorder/2024/11/20/meta-seeks-declaratory-judgment-in-vr-eyewear-tech-patent-infringement-case-/
MISCELLANEOUS
MP HC OVERTURNS NIT BHOPAL PROFESSOR'S DISMISSAL, CITES VIOLATIONS OF POSH ACT AND PROCEDURAL ERRORS
The Madhya Pradesh HC overturned the dismissal of an Assistant
Professor from Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (NIT),
Bhopal, who was accused of sexual harassment, citing violations of
the POSH Act and procedural errors in the disciplinary process. The
court noted that the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) failed to
attempt conciliation before proceeding with the enquiry, as
required by Sections 10 and 11 of the POSH Act. It also criticized
the enquiry for not recording witness statements or allowing
cross-examination, calling the process an
“eyewash.”
Additionally, the court found that the ICC was improperly
constituted and that the complaint was filed beyond the three-month
window prescribed by the POSH Act. The court also noted a violation
of Section 16 of the Act, as a person outside the ICC was involved
in handling the complaint. The petitioner argued that the
disciplinary action violated civil service rules, as the enquiry
did not follow fair procedures. The respondent claimed the case
should be resolved through arbitration, but the court rejected
this, stating the petitioner could seek judicial remedy due to
violations of natural justice. Ultimately, the court ruled that the
dismissal was unlawful and reversed it.
(1) Dr. Kali Charna Sabat Vs. U.O.I. Through National Institute Of Technology & Others (W.P. No.10021-2024)
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.
