TRADEMARK
6E vs 6e: INDIGO SUES MAHINDRA
In a big splash, it has been reported that India's largest air carrier, IndiGo, has filed a suit for trademark infringement against Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited in the High Court of Delhi for allegedly misusing its trademark '6E', in Mahindra's upcoming electric car called Mahindra BE 6e, which is set to be launched in February 2025. IndiGo, claims that its callsign "6E," is part of its brand identity, in '6E Prime,' '6E Flex,' and '6E Add-ons.' IndiGo has also registered '6E Link' as a trademark in 2015 in many classes, including advertising, airline transport services, and printed matters. However, recently, Mahindra Electric has received conditional approval to register the mark 'BE 6e' under Class 12, which covers motor vehicles. IndiGo, however, claims this could confuse consumers and jeopardise its brand in 6E and is hence seeking relief, in the Intellectual Property Division of Delhi HC.
(1) Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) Vs. Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited & Anr. Cs(Comm) 1073 / 2024
TRADEMARK
METRO OWNED 'MOCHI' GRANTED INTERIM RELIEF
Australian The Bombay HC has passed an interim order in favor of
Metro Brands Ltd., restraining the defendants from infringing
Metro's registered 'MOCHI' trademarks, using the
impugned mark 'DESIMOCHI' and/or any other mark identical
and/or deceptively similar to the registered mark. Metro a renowned
footwear retailer has used the 'MOCHI' mark since 1977 and
has several registrations for the same. The defendants, selling
footwear, operated using the domain "www.desimochi.com".
Since the infringing marks were apparently identical and/or
deceptively similar to the applicant's registered
'MOCHI' marks and were being used in relation to the same
set of goods, as those of the applicant, it could lead to confusion
among footwear consumers.
The court thus held that the applicant's mark had acquired a
prima facie reputation as of the relevant date and established that
the defendant's use of the mark 'DESIMOCHI' was likely
to lead consumers to believe that some connection existed between
the defendants and the applicant's business. The Court further
held that the applicant's mark 'MOCHI' was a well-known
trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that there was a
presumption of distinctiveness for the registered marks. The
defendants' contention that 'DESIMOCHI' was a generic
term was dismissed, and the Court held that the balance of
convenience lay in favour of the applicant.
(1) Metro Brands Ltd. v. Nice Shoes LLP, decided on 18th November 2024, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3647
TRADEMARK
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY'S ARTS COLLEGE BUILDING IS SET TO BE TRADEMARKED
Osmania University's iconic heritage Arts College building, once a symbol of Hyderabad's beauty since its inauguration in 1939, is set to turn into India's third trademark-registered building, after the Taj Mahal Hotel and the Bombay Stock Exchange. Designed by a blend of Qutub Shahi, Mughal, and Indo-Saracenic styles, the building is made out of pinkish granite covering 164 rooms spanning an area of 2.5 lakh square feet. Prof. G.B. Reddy along with the experts from intellectual property filed this application in April 2024. Trademarking buildings have originated in the US and grants an owner proprietary rights to merchandise building pictures, such as the landmark Empire State Building in New York or the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
COPYRIGHT
UNAUTHORISED USE OF ARTISTIC WORKS BY AI
A PIL has been filed before the Delhi High Court by model Kanchan Nagar, photographer Vikas Saboo, and the company Images Bazaar to address the growing threat of AI-generated content. The PIL seeks amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957, and the IT Rules to better protect artists from the misuse of their copyrighted work by AI technologies. The petitioners argue that current laws are inadequate to deal with AI-induced offenses, such as the creation and distribution of AI-generated content that impersonates or misappropriates copyrighted images. To combat this issue, the PIL demands the inclusion of specific provisions in the law to penalize such actions. Additionally, it calls for the identification and blocking of unregulated AI tools that facilitate the creation of unauthorized content. The petitioners also advocate for the establishment of a dedicated nodal officer to handle complaints related to AI-generated copyright infringement which would streamline the process for artists to report and resolve grievances, ensuring their rights are protected. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 24, 2024.
(1) https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-to-hear-plea-ai-software-stealing-artistic-works
COPYRIGHT
ACQUITTAL IN COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASE
The Punjab and Haryana HC acquitted a man who was accused of manufacturing and illegally selling garments under a fake Puma label. The case was initiated in 2017 when the man was charged with infringement under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act of India, 1957, for allegedly copying Puma's design and for trademark violation charges under sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act. The HC pointed out that, under the Copyright Act, clothing cannot be copyrighted and in view of that, there could be no copyright in the manufacture and sale of garments. It also held that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case for infringement under sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act. The Court further went on to observe that the trademark infringement case was improperly investigated i.e. investigated by a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Due to these procedural issues, the Court concluded that the prosecution of both the copyright and trademark were not legally valid, and quashed the criminal case.
(1) Arun Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr., [2024:PHHC:155158]
PATENT
DELHI HC IMPOSES FINE OF 7 LAKHS FOR INFRINGING ASTRAZENECA'S TAGRISSO PATENT
SamAstraZeneca filed a patent infringement case against WestCoast Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. for infringing its patent on the cancer drug Osimertinib (IN 297581). WestCoast was promoting bulk production and offering to supply up to 100,000 Osimertinib tablets, despite the patent protection. In early 2022, AstraZeneca filed a lawsuit and obtained an ex parte injunction against WestCoast, preventing the company from selling or manufacturing Osimertinib in India. WestCoast failed to submit a defense within the required time, leading the court to convert the interim injunction into a permanent one. The Delhi High Court noted West Coast's history of patent violations and ruled in favor of AstraZeneca. The court granted a summary judgment, finding that WestCoast had no credible defense and was a "habitual infringer." As a result, AstraZeneca was granted a permanent injunction and awarded Rs. 7 lakh in legal costs to cover the expenses caused by WestCoast's delays and frivolous motions.
(1) Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. vs Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works CS(COMM) 101/2022
PERSONALITY RIGHTS
DELHI HC PROTECTS DR. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY'S PERSONALITY RIGHTS
The Delhi HC recently granted an injunction in favor of the well-known cardiac surgeon, Dr. Devi Shetty, and his company, Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., for misusing and exploiting his personality and publicity rights and infringing the registered trademarks of the company. The defendants restrained are unidentifiable third parties operating Facebook pages, viz. Medicine Me and QDD Milano Nightlife TV, respectively, who by creating fake identities and sharing fake and misleading videos on the platform, were misusing Dr. Shetty's image, likeness, and videos for commercial purposes, without his express consent. The Plaintiff contended that utilizing Dr. Devi Shetty's personality traits posed a significant threat and that members of the public might be misled into purchasing the promoted/ marketed health products by the Defendants. The court held that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case, and if no injunction was granted, they would suffer irreparable loss. The case is posted for further hearing on April 15, 2025.
(1) Dr Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. v. Medicine Me & Ors. [Case No. CS(COMM) 1053/2024]
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.
