TRADEMARK
MICROSOFT AWARDED ₹55 LAKH AS DAMAGES
Microsoft Corporation the tech giant along with its Indian
subsidiary filed a suit against Retnec Solutions Pvt. Ltd. &
others (defendants) for trademark infringement, passing off, unfair
trade practices, and dilution before the Gurugram Commercial Court.
Microsoft alleged that the defendants had since 2018 been
infringing on its registered trademarks including, “HOTMAIL,
“OUTLOOK” &” OFFICE 365” by operating a
fake call center and misleading customers through pop-up messages
and cold calls by unauthorizedly using Microsoft's
branding.
The Commercial Court ruled in favor of Microsoft, issuing a
permanent injunction ordering the defendants to destroy all
infringing materials bearing the Microsoft trademark, including
call scripts, promotional and business brochures etc. Additionally,
it also imposed punitive damages on the defendants for harming
Microsoft's reputation and awarded Microsoft Rs. 55 lakhs as
damages and Rs. 20.6 lakh as legal costs.
TRADEMARK
e.l.f.'s “Dupe” MASCARA SURVIVES TRADEMARK LAWSUIT
Benefit Cosmetics took e.l.f. Cosmetics to court, alleging trademark and trade dress infringement in respect oftheir “Roller Lash” mascara, a product in the market since 2015. e.l.f. Cosmetics released their “Lash ‘N Roll” mascara in 2022, which bore a striking resemblance to Benefit's product in name, packaging, and overall appearance. e.l.f. Cosmetics openly admitted their intention to create a replica of Benefit's mascara, while also asserting that the product aligned with their broader musical theme branding.
The California Federal Court, while acknowledging the similarities in primary packaging, focused on the differences in secondary packaging, noted that e.l.f.'s products had distinct house marks and design elements. Furthermore, the court pointed out to Benefit's failure to provide adequate evidence of actual consumer confusion, despite having the resources to do so. The court also observed that the products are sold through different retail channels, further diminishing the likelihood of consumer confusion.
(1) https://www.thefashionlaw.com/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-elf-dupe-mascara-product/
TRADEMARK
“PE” A DISTINCT OR UNIQUE WORD OR NOT?
Madras HC has denied exclusive trademark rights to PhonePe over
the word ‘Pe.' Phonepe, a digital payment and financial
services company claimed that they have been using the mark since
2015, and are solely associated with their brand name. They argued
that other brands like Bundlepe and latepe, using the mark
‘Pe' would create confusion in the minds of
people.
Bundlepe contended that the ‘Pe' mark is not unique or
distinctive and should not be granted monopoly. Bundlepe alleged
they were not similar to Phonepe, as they provide different
services like recharge and bill payment.
The Court held that no permanent injunction would be granted
against Bundlepe or latepe. ‘Pe' was declared to be a
generic word which when translated means pay or payment and many
platforms like Google Pay, and ApplePay have been using the word
for years. Moreover, the Court found that the prefix
‘bundle' and ‘late' being used by other
brands will not create confusion in the minds of people.
(1) https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/phonepe-v-bundlepe-584175.pdf
COPYRIGHT
OPEN AI SUSPECTS DEEPSEEK MAY HAVE BREACHED ITS TERMS
OpenAI has raised concerns about potential intellectual property infringement by the Chinese AI company DeepSeek. They suspect DeepSeek may have utilized a process called “distillation,” where a smaller AI model learns by repeatedly interacting with a larger, pre-existing one. This practice is forbidden under OpenAI's terms of service. DeepSeek's emergence as a competitor offering very products at greatly reduced prices, particularly due to its open-source approach, claimed accuracy, and lower development costs, has shaken the AI sector. Although DeepSeek has been under scrutiny for alleged IP theft since its market entry, some experts argue these accusations are based on a flawed understanding of DeepSeek's model training process.
(1) https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-sci-tech/deepseek-openai-technology-9807132/
COPYRIGHT
INDIAN PUBLISHERS SUE OPENAI FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
OpenAI The Federation of Indian Publishers (FIP) filed a
copyright infringement suit against OpenAI, for using the
copyrighted literary works of members without permission. FIP has
alleged that OpenAI has trained ChatGPT using copyrighted content.
The publisher's main concern was that this would reduce
offline sales, as now books are available online.
When testing ChatGPT by asking a question on Harry Potter, it
stated relevant summaries, but without citations or actual long
text, which was published by Bloomsbury.
FIP filed a lawsuit in the Delhi HC, praying for an injunction
restraining OpenAI from using copyrighted content. The lawsuit
demands transparency concerning the data used to train AI and seeks
compensation for copyright infringement. The Delhi HC will further
hear the matter on 21st February.
Similarly, the legal battle between digital news organizations and
OpenAI has escalated with NDTV and Network 18 seeking to join an
existing lawsuit in New Delhi. They accuse OpenAI of using their
content to train its AI model, ChatGPT, without proper
authorization or credit. They express concern that the AI's
ability to reproduce their work could undermine their business
models and devalue their reporting.
TRADE SECRET
INFOSYS FILED A SUIT AGAINST COGNIZANT FOR TRADE SECRET INFRINGEMENT
Cognizant, a multinational IT company, has accused Infosys of stealing confidential information and trade secrets related to its healthcare insurance claims processing software, QNXT and Facets. Infosys countered that the information in question is readily available online and in the public domain. The US court has now directed Cognizant to provide specific details about the alleged trade secrets, following Infosys's denial of the accusations. Cognizant has requested more time to respond to Infosys's counterclaims.
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.
