TRADEMARK
INTERIM RELIEF TO IKEA IN TRADEMARK DISPUTE
The Delhi HC has granted an interim injunction in favor of IKEA,
the Swedish multinational furniture company. The injunction
prevents the Indian company IKEY Home Studio from using the name
"IKEY" or any similar marks that could confuse consumers
into thinking that IKEY products are related to those of
IKEA.
The court also ordered the suspension of the IKEY website domain.
IKEA argued that IKEY's use of similar names could harm its
reputation, as it is a well-known global brand. IKEY had denied any
similarity but did not appear in court, leading to the ex-parte
injunction. The case will be heard again in May 2025.
(1) Inter Ikea Systems Bv vs. IKey Home Studio LLP and Anr CS(COMM) 1143/2024
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC REJECTS MOMO'S CLAIM OVER "WOW"
The Delhi HC has denied the word Wow a trademark registration!
Momo, the food company's request for a monopoly over the word
"wow" for its momo packets, is in a trademark dispute
with Wow Burger, a Hong Kong-based food chain.
Momo argued that using "wow" in the branding of Wow
Burger would confuse consumers and infringe on its trademark.
However, the court ruled that "wow" is too generic and
widely used in the restaurant industry to be monopolized by anyone.
The court rescheduled the hearing to January 31, 2025, and also
highlighted the challenge of enforcing trademark rights over common
words.
(1) Wow Momo Foods Private Limited Vs. Wow Burger & Anr. CS(COMM) 1161 / 2024
TRADEMARK
LENOVO'S "THINK" MARKS UPHELD IN A TRADEMARK DISPUTE
In a significant ruling, the Madras HC has ordered the
revocation of the "THINBOOK" trademark held by a
Hyderabad-based firm, citing its deceptive similarity to
Lenovo's "THINK" family of marks, which include
products like ThinkPad and ThinkCentre.
Lenovo argued that the "THINBOOK" mark could confuse
consumers due to its structural, phonetic, visual and conceptual
resemblance to Lenovo's well-established brand, which has been
in use since 1992. The court upheld Lenovo's claim, emphasizing
the distinctiveness of the "THINK" marks and ruling that
the "THINBOOK" mark was in violation of trademark
laws.
(1) Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. RPD Workstations Private Limited, OP(TM) No.60 of 2024
PERSONALITY RIGHTS
PROTECTION OF JOURNALIST RAJAT SHARMA'S PERSONALITY RIGHTS
The Delhi HC has granted an interim injunction to Rajat Sharma, a prominent journalist known for hosting influential shows like Aap Ki Adalat and Aaj Ki Baat, preventing the unauthorized use of his image and the trademarks of his news channel, India TV. The ruling follows Sharma's legal action against individuals and organizations using his likeness and the India TV brand to promote unverified medical products, including treatments for joint pain, diabetes, and prostatitis.
The court emphasized that the defendants' actions were causing irreparable harm to Sharma and the channel's reputation and ordered the removal of all infringing content from platforms like Meta, as well as a ban on using Sharma's identity and India TV's trademarks, for profit.
(1) Rajat Sharma & Anr. Vs. Tamara Doc & Ors. CS(COMM) 1147 / 2024
COPYRIGHT
INJUNCTION AGAINST ROGUE WEBSITES
The Delhi HC has granted an injunction to Unisys Infosolutions,
a Haryana-based company involved in film and audio-visual content
production, against rogue websites pirating its work. Unisys filed
a suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent websites like
Desicinemas, from infringing its copyrights.
The court acknowledged the "systematic and intentional"
nature of the infringement and warned that Unisys was at risk of
irreparable harm if these activities continued. The court also
allowed websites that were unintentionally blocked to approach it
with an undertaking of non-infringement and scheduled the case for
further hearing on April 2, 2025.
(1) Unisys Infosolutions v Desicinemas.TV (CS(COMM) 1116/2024)
COPYRIGHT
POPEYE AND TINTIN SET TO ENTER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE U.S.
On January 1, 2025, iconic comic characters Popeye and Tintin, owned respectively by Warner Brothers Discovery and La Croix de l'Aigle S.A, will officially enter the public domain in the United States, meaning anyone can freely use, adapt, and modify these characters without permission or royalty payments.
Popeye, created in 1929 by E.C. Segar, and Tintin, created by Hergé in 1929, will become part of a growing collection of works, whose 95-year copyright term is expiring. This shift opens up opportunities for creative reinterpretations of both characters, though later versions of Popeye, such as the 1980 film, remain under copyright. This marks another significant moment in the expanding realm of public domain works.
PATENT
APPLE SUED FOR WIRELESS CHARGING PATENT INFRINGEMENT
South Korean cable company LS Cable & Systems has filed a lawsuit against Apple in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, accusing the tech giant of infringing its wireless charging patent application US8013568.
The patent, registered in 2011, covers a technology for contactless battery charging and control methods. LS Cable claims that Apple's iPhones, Apple Watches, and AirPods violate this patent, particularly following Apple's 2017 introduction of the AirPower charging pad. Despite warnings from LS Cable starting in 2019, Apple allegedly did not respond.
(1) https://www.thelec.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=5087
PATENT
$50.3 MN DAMAGES AWARDED IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT
A federal jury in Delaware has ruled that Amgen's leukemia drug, Blincyto, infringes on patents owned by Lindis Biotech, a German company. The jury awarded Lindis Biotech $50.3 million in damages, and since the infringement was deemed willful, the damages could be tripled to $150.9 million.
The patents relate to immunotherapy advancements involving "bispecific" antibodies used to target cancer cells while minimizing side effects. Amgen, which disputes the ruling and intends to appeal, argued that Lindis' patents were invalid.
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.
