ARTICLE
24 January 2025

IPR Weekly Highlights (64)

LM
Lex Mantis

Contributor

Recently Capital Foods, the manufacturer of "Ching's Schezwan Chutney," filed a lawsuit against Dabur India in the Delhi HC.
Worldwide Intellectual Property

TRADEMARK

DABUR SUED FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT OVER "SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY"

Recently Capital Foods, the manufacturer of "Ching's Schezwan Chutney," filed a lawsuit against Dabur India in the Delhi HC. The suit alleges that Dabur's launch of its own Schezwan Chutney product infringes on Capital Foods' registered trademark for "Schezwan Chutney." Capital Foods alleges that Dabur's packaging is misleading and could confuse consumers into believing that Dabur's products are associated with or endorsed by them. Earlier in October 2024, Dabur challenged the validity of Capital Foods' registered trademark, claiming it is generic and ineligible for protection. The HC issued a notice to Dabur and listed the matter for hearing on 28th Feb'25 to address these claims.

(1) Capital Foods Private Ltd. vs Dabur India Ltd.; C.S. (COMM) 10/2025

TRADEMARK

eZio vs eZEO: TRADEMARK BATTLE IN EV MARKET

Though Gensol Electric Vehicles filed a trademark infringement suit against Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Ltd. to seek an interim injunction to stop the sale of Mahindra's newly launched electric vehicle, "eZEO", the Delhi HC denied Gensol's request and observed that it had failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims of trademark infringement. Gensol had argued that Mahindra's use of "eZEO" would likely confuse consumers, with Gensol registered trademarks "eZio" and "Ezio", and further, the name "Ezio" EV of its two-seater electric vehicle that it plans to launch, in Delhi later this week. The HC granted Mahindra 10 days to file a reply to Gensol's claims.

(1) Gensol Electric Vehicles vs Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited; CS(COMM) 849/2024

TRADEMARK

KRBL WINS MONOPOLY OVER THE MARKS "NOOR JAHAN" & "NUR JAHAN"

KRBL sued Tricon Polyfabs Pvt. Ltd for trademark, copyright infringement, and passing off its marks, while claiming that it has been using the registered trademarks "NOOR JAHAN' & "NUR JAHAN" from 1999 onwards for its rice sales and has established a goodwill and reputation for the said goods in the business. KRBL accused Tricon Polyfabs of infringing on its rights by using deceptively similar trademarks and packaging for rice products.

The court ruled in favor of KRBL issuing an injunction prohibiting Tricon Polyfabs from using the marks 'NOOR JAHAN/ NUR JAHAN' in any way, including selling, advertising, or exporting products bearing these names or logos concerning rice or allied products. This decision underscores the significance of acquired distinctiveness through prolonged use and the establishment of goodwill in the marketplace.

(1) KRBL Limited vs Tricon Polycabs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.; CS(COMM)1702/2020

COPYRIGHT

IS BIRKENSTOCK ART? LEGAL FIGHT OVER SANDAL DESIGN

Birkenstock the renowned global footwear manufacturer, has initiated three lawsuits in Germany against entities producing counterfeit versions of its iconic cork–soled sandals. These sandals, including the Arizona, Gizeh, Madrid, and Boston Clog models, have achieved global recognition and are donned by celebrities. Birkenstock's legal team argued that these sandals are entitled to copyright protection like the Porsche 356 car and furniture designed by Le Corbusier and contended that the creator of any unique work, including footwear, should possess exclusive rights to protect the artistic aspects of its sandals.
This legal battle has escalated to the Federal Court of Justice of Germany, the country's highest judicial authority. Before this, while one of the subordinate courts ruled that "applied art" could be applied to footwear, the Higher Regional Court failed to recognize any artistic merit in the sandals' design.

(1) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/09/birkenstock-sues-copycat-rivals-claiming-its-sandals-are-applied-art-germany

COPYRIGHT

ANIMATOR SUES DISNEY FOR INFRINGEMENT OVER "MOANA"

An important headline this week has been that Animator Buck Woodall has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Walt Disney Animation Studios in California federal court for theft of his screenplay for the recent film Moana. The suit alleges that Disney's "Moana" franchise, including the 2016 animated film and its sequel, unlawfully incorporates elements from his decades-old screenplay, "Bucky". Woodall claims that in "Moana" there are striking similarities to his work, including shared themes such as a protagonist's journey of self-discovery, references to the Polynesian culture, and other key elements. He further alleges that he presented his screenplay concept to his former employer, who at the time had a first-look deal with Disney and asserts that his employer subsequently shared his screenplay with Disney without authorization. Woodall seeks $10 billion as damages or a 2.5% royalty on the gross revenue of the "Moana 2" film and related merchandise.

(1)https://nypost.com/2025/01/14/entertainment/disney-sued-by-writer-for-10-billion-over-moana/

PATENT

DELHI HC UPHOLDS MAINTAINABILITY OF REVOCATION PETITION FOR EXPIRED PATENT

In a recent decision, the Delhi HC upheld the validity of a revocation petition filed in 2022 for a patent for an anti-diabetic drug, which had expired during the pendency of the proceedings. The respondent argued that the revocation petition had become infructuous due to the patent's expiration, rendering it moot. The respondent also highlighted that a concurrent infringement suit was filed by them in 2022 before the Himachal Pradesh HC. However, the HC dismissed the contention and ruled that a successful revocation of the patent would have a direct bearing on the ongoing infringement suit before the Himachal Pradesh HC, potentially leading to its dismissal. The court concluded that the petitioner had a legitimate cause of action to pursue the revocation petition and mere expiration of the patent did not automatically render the petition infructuous, given its potential impact on the ongoing infringement proceedings.

(1) Macleods Pharmaceutical Ltd. vs. The Controller of Patents & Anr.; C.O.(COMM.IPD –PAT 38/2022)

PATENT

NOVEL HARDWARE NO LONGER REQUIRED IN SOFTWARE INVENTION

The Delhi HC overturned the Indian Patent Office's (IPO) rejection of a patent application for software invention in 2023, citing that novel hardware is not explicitly required in software inventions. The case involved Raytheon Company's application for a patent on a method for optimising job scheduling in high-performance computing systems. The IPO had initially denied the grant of the patent, citing Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, which excludes "computer programs per se" from patentability.
The court ruled that the presence of novel hardware features is not a prerequisite for the patentability of a computer-related invention and instead, emphasised that the focus should be on the invention's technical contribution and its practical effect. Further, the court criticized the IPO for relying on outdated 2016 CRI guidelines and directed them to re-examine the application in light of the updated 2017 CRI guidelines.

(1) Raytheon Company vs Controller General of Patents and Ors.; C.A. (COMM. IPD – PAT) 121/202

POSH

SUPREME COURT ISSUES NOTICE TO WCD, MCA & NCW

The SC of India issued notices to the union government, seeking responses from the Ministries of Women and Child Development (WCD), Corporate Affairs (MCA), and the National Commission for Women (NCW). This action follows a PIL filed to safeguard Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) members at private workplaces from arbitrary and retaliatory actions taken against them for their decisions during sexual harassment inquiries.

While the Act provides for a fixed tenure and protection from arbitrary termination for ICC members in the public sector, similar safeguards are not explicitly mentioned for private sector employees. The PIL seeks to address this disparity and ensure that ICC members in the private sector are also protected from any adverse consequences resulting from their diligent performance of their duties.

(1) Janaki Chaudhry v. Ministry of Women and Child Development, W.P.(C) No. 796/2024

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More