TRADEMARK
TATA POWER SOLAR GRANTED MULTIPLE RELIEFS
Tata Power Solar System Limited, along with Tata Sons
(Plaintiffs), filed a suit against multiple domain name registrants
(Defendants 1-19) in the Delhi HC. The suit was filed for
infringement of its marks "TATA", "TATA POWER",
"TATA POWER SOLAR" and related formative marks. The
Plaintiffs asserted that they have held these trademarks across
various classes since 2020, which establishes their significant
brand recognition and goodwill. Further, they alleged that the
Defendants were unlawfully using these marks.
The HC, relying on the plaintiff's claims and evidence, ruled
that they have been able to prove their ownership over the marks.
Further, the HC ruled upon examining the Defendants' domain
names and email addresses, that they were designed to exploit the
Plaintiffs' established reputation. The HC thus issued a
permanent injunction against Defendants 1-3 and 17-18, prohibiting
their further use of the infringing marks. Defendants 6-14 were
ordered to freeze their bank accounts, transfer the funds to the
Reserve Bank of India's Depositor and Education Awareness Fund,
and submit an affidavit of compliance.
Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. & Anr. vs.
www.tatapowersolardealership.co.in & Ors. CS (COMM) 419/2024,
I.A. 29729/2024, I.A. 35874/2024 & I.A. 41465/2024
TRADEMARK
AMAZON TO PAY HEAVY DAMAGES FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Lifestyle Equities CV (LECV), claiming ownership of the mark
"Beverly Hills Polo Club" (BHPC), filed a suit in the
Delhi HC, against Amazon Technologies, Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd.,
and Amazon Seller Service Pvt. Ltd. (Defendants). LECV alleged that
Cloudtail was unauthorizedly using its mark on Amazon's
platform under the symbol of Amazon Technologies Pvt. Ltd., leading
to consumer confusion and diluting the mark's goodwill &
reputation.
Previously, the HC had issued a permanent injunction against Amazon
Technologies prohibiting the use of the BHPC logo. The HC observed
that Amazon was attempting to obscure the relationship between the
three defendant entities to evade infringement liability.
Consequently, the HC ordered Amazon to pay USD 5 million
(approximately Rs. 43.32 crore) for increased advertising and
marketing expenses incurred by LECV and USD 33.78 million
(approximately Rs. 292.70 crore) for lost royalties, totaling to
USD 38.78 million (Rs. 336.02 crore). Additionally, Amazon was
directed to pay Rs. 3.23 crore to cover the costs of the
lawsuit.
Lifestyle Equities CV &Anr. Vs. Amazon Technologies Inc & Ors., CS(COMM) 443/2020
TRADEMARK
BURGER KING SECURES INTERIM RELIEF AGAINST ROGUE WEBSITES
Burger King Corporation (Plaintiff) has taken legal action
against a network of unknown defendants operating fraudulent
websites that misuse its trademark "BURGER KING". In a
suit filed in the Delhi HC in 2022, the Plaintiff alleged that
these defendants were running rogue websites with domain names
closely resembling "BURGER KING," often incorporating
terms like "INDIA," "FRANCHISE," or
"FRANCHISES." These websites prominently displayed the
BURGER KING trademark and solicited franchise applications,
misleading potential victims. The defendants further impersonated
representatives of Restaurant Brands Asia Ltd., the Plaintiff's
exclusive licensor, sending emails and fabricating documents
bearing the company's trademark.
The HC has directed domain name registrars to immediately suspend
the contested domain names and associated email addresses. The
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has been
instructed to issue directives to Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
to block access to these rogue websites. Additionally, Bharti
Airtel Ltd. has been ordered to disable mobile IDs linked to
fraudulent activities and to provide the HC with the
defendants' details, aiding in the ongoing investigation.
Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors. CS(COMM) 303/2022, I.As. 7302/2022
COPYRIGHT
AMICUS CURIAE WARNS CONTENT RESTRICTIONS ON LLMS MAY WORSEN MISINFORMATION
The Delhi HC recently heard arguments from multiple Amicus
Curiae on generative AI. It was submitted that restricting LLMs
(Large Language Models) like ChatGPT from accessing copyrighted
content could increase misinformation. Dr. Arul George Scaria,
Amicus Curiae, emphasized that LLMs require diverse datasets for
effective training: "More access reduces
misinformation."
The HC is evaluating whether OpenAI infringed ANI's copyright,
if fair use applies, and whether India has jurisdiction. Justice
Amit Bansal acknowledged the absence of AI-specific laws. Scaria
compared AI learning to human learning, while Amicus Adarsh
Ramanujan argued that copying constitutes infringement unless
protected under fair use. The next hearing date has been set for
March 10.
ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. Open AI INC & Anr.; CS(COMM)
1028/2024
PATENT
MADRAS HC DISMISSES AI-INTEGRATED PATENT APPEAL
The Madras HC dismissed Caleb Suresh Motupalli's appeal
challenging the rejection of his patent for a product integrating
human and AI capabilities. The HC upheld the Controller of
Patents' decision, finding no grounds for interference.
Motupalli sought a patent for "Necktie
Persona-Extender/Environment-Integrator and Method for
Super-Augmenting a Persona to Manifest a Pan-Environment
Super-Cyborg," claiming it enhanced human abilities by merging
AI and human intelligence. The Indian Patent Office rejected the
application for lack of innovation and non-compliance with the
Patents Act. A review petition was also denied. The applicant
argued that the invention was novel, integrating humans, AI, and
digital spaces to enhance cognitive and physical abilities and
contended that its complexity required interdisciplinary
evaluation. However, the Controller found the claims vague, lacking
clear technical innovation, and overly broad, making them
ineligible for a patent.
The HC concurred, ruling that the invention lacked specificity and
failed to demonstrate real technological impact. It also held that
the Controller erred in treating the review as a fresh application
but correctly rejected it. The HC upheld the Controller's
decision, affirming that the invention did not meet patentability
standards.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli V. Controller of Patents, C.M.A. (PT0 No.2 of 2024)
GDPR
ECJ RULES ON DATA RIGHTS VS. TRADE SECRETS
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that when data subject
rights conflict with a data controller's trade secrets, then
courts or data protection authorities must review the information
to determine disclosure. The case involved an Austrian citizen
challenging the credit agency Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) after
being denied a telephone contract. D&B refused to disclose
details, citing trade secrets.
Under GDPR, individuals have the right to know how their data is
processed, and automated decisions significantly affecting them are
restricted. The ECJ ruled that while trade secrets can be
protected, controllers must submit disputed information to
authorities or courts for review. The decision may also impact AI
systems, often developed by secretive companies. NGO Noyb has
already filed a complaint with the Swedish Data Protection
Authority against Swedbank for withholding credit scoring details
under a trade secret claim.
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.
