TRADEMARK
DELHI COURT ORDERS DESTRUCTION OF LEVI'S COUNTERFEIT GOODS
Levi Strauss & Co., (Plaintiff) known worldwide for its
Levi's brand of denim jeans has filed a suit against Aman Ojha,
Kamal Kumar, and Raja Ram (Defendants) in the Delhi district court
for trademark and copyright infringement. The Plaintiff sought a
permanent injunction, damages, and the destruction of counterfeit
goods, among other reliefs.
The court had previously issued an order restraining the Defendants
from using Levi's registered trademarks. Subsequent inspection
by court-appointed Local Commissioners revealed continued
infringement activities at the Defendants' premises, that
resulted in seizures of a substantial quantity of counterfeit
Levi's products, including, finished jeans, Levi's tags,
unfinished jean pockets, and labels.
Aman Ojha settled his dues by paying Rs. 1,50,000 as damages to the
Plaintiff. To fully adjudicate the remaining claims, the court,
applying the principles of damage assessment established in the
Koninklijke Philips case, ordered Kamal Kumar and Raja Ram to pay
damages of Rs. 3 lakhs along with the costs of the suit & fees
of the commissioner. The court also mandated the destruction of all
seized counterfeit goods.
1. Levis Strauss & Co. vs. Aman Ojha & Ors. ; CS (COMM) 75/2022
TRADEMARK
MADRAS HC ALLOWS RENEWAL OF TRADEMARK DESPITE LAPSE
Sakthi Oil Mills (Petitioner) filed a petition in the Madras HC
to obtain a directive from the Registrar of Trademarks to allow the
late renewal of their registered mark "THENALEE" in Class
29. The mark, originally registered in 2002 and renewed in 2012
(with an extension to 2022), faced rejection for renewal when the
Petitioner applied in 2024 due to the application being filed
beyond the prescribed deadline.
The Petitioner relied on the precedent set by the Madras HC's
division bench ruling in A. Abdul Karim Sahib to argue its
entitlement to seek renewal despite lapse. The Madras HC recognized
the validity of the Petitioner's claim based on the established
legal precedent and directed the Registrar to allow the Petitioner
to file the renewal application for the mark
"THENALEE".
1.M/s. Sakthi Oil Mills vs. Registrar of Trademarks; W.P. (IPD) No.38/2024
DESIGN
COMMUNITY DESIGN AND TRADEMARK DISPUTE OVER "DR. ALBERT"
Dr. Adina Alberts sought to invalidate a Community design registered by Techtex SRL in May 2020, claiming it contained the word element "dr. albert," similar to her trademarks and trade name. She relied on five Romanian word marks and three trade names under Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. However, the EUIPO Cancellation Division rejected her claim in April 2023, citing the late registration of three trademarks and the dissimilarity of the earlier two. Lacking national legal proof for trade name protection, her claim was dismissed, leading to an appeal in June 2023.
On 11 March 2024, the EUIPO Board of Appeal partially upheld her
appeal, recognizing some similarity between one of her trademarks
and the contested design but requiring proof of use. Dr. Alberts
objected to reassessment procedures, but the Court ruled
verification necessary. The case was remanded to the Cancellation
Division, leaving the dispute unresolved pending further proof of
use and similarity evaluation. She further argued that the Board
misinterpreted Article 25(1)(e) and failed to consider her reliance
on Article 39(2)(c) of Law No 84/1998, which protects reputed marks
in Romania. However, the Board found she had only argued a
likelihood of confusion under Article 39(2)(b) without explicitly
citing 39(2)(c). The Court upheld this, ruling that general legal
references without specific arguments were insufficient.
Dr. Alberts also contested the Board's finding that her earlier
mark No 2 covered goods which are dissimilar to sanitary masks. She
claimed the contested design, related to surgical mask packaging,
was similar to her goods in Classes 3 and 25. The Court rejected
this, noting the differences in nature, purpose, and distribution
channels. Ultimately, the Court dismissed her action, affirming the
Board's decision. Dr. Alberts was ordered to bear her own costs
and pay those incurred by Techtex SRL, whereas the EUIPO covered
their own costs.
1.Adina Alberts v. EUIPO (Case R 1348/2023-3)
COPYRIGHT
TAYLOR SWIFT FACES ANOTHER LAWSUIT FROM KIMBERLY MARASCO
Kimberly Marasco has escalated her legal battle against Taylor
Swift by filing a new copyright infringement suit, which broadens
the scope of her accusations. The previous lawsuit, was dismissed
due to Marasco's failure to serve the suit in a timely manner
The latest suit targets Swift's album titled "The Tortured
Poets Department: The Anthology", specifically alleging
copyright infringement in the songs "Who's Afraid of
Little Old Me?" and "I Can Do It With a Broken
Heart." The lawsuit also adds new defendants, songwriters Jack
Antonoff and Aaron Dessner, as well as Universal Music Group, Inc.,
and Republic Records.
Marasco reiterates her earlier infringement claims concerning
Swift's tracks "The Man" from the "Lover"
album and "Midnight Rain" from "Midnights" in
the present suit. As a result of these expanded allegations and the
inclusion of new songs and defendants, Marasco has dramatically
increased her demand for damages, now seeking $25 million, a
substantial rise from the $7 million requested in her initial,
now-dismissed lawsuit.
1.https://www.newsweek.com/taylor-swift-copyright-lawsuit-florida-artist-eras-tour-2038875
COPYRIGHT
DELHI HC RULES IN FAVOR OF PPL
Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), a music licensing
company, has filed a lawsuit against Azure Hospitality, owner of
popular restaurants like Mamagoto, Dhaba, Sly Granny, and Fox Trot,
for copyright infringement in the Delhi HC. PPL alleged that
restaurants belonging to Azure Hospitality were playing PPL's
copyrighted sound recordings without obtaining the proper
license.
The HC ruled in favor of PPL, asserting that as the owner of the
songs, PPL has the right to issue licenses for its use, even though
it was not a registered copyright society. The HC further went on
to emphasize that the right to grant licenses for copyrighted works
is an inherent right of the copyright owner under Section 30 of the
Copyright Act 1957, and this right cannot be overridden by Section
33(1) of the Copyright Act 1957.
1.Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Azure Hospitality & Ors.; CS(COMM) 714/2022
PATENT
OPUS GENETICS CONFRONTS PATENT CHALLENGE FROM SANDOZ AMID ONGOING CLINICAL AND FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
The Opus Genetics, Inc., a Durham, NC-based pharmaceutical
company with a market capitalization of $31.57 million, has
disclosed in an SEC filing that it received a Paragraph IV
Certification Notice from Sandoz Incorporated. The notice, dated
January 2025, informs Opus Genetics that Sandoz has submitted an
Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA to produce a
generic version of RYZUMVI", a patented drug owned by Opus
Genetics. Sandoz challenges the validity and enforceability of six
Opus Genetics patents listed in the FDA's Orange Book.
In response, Opus Genetics or its commercial partner may choose to
initiate a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days, which would
trigger an automatic 30-month stay on FDA approval of the generic
product unless the court rules otherwise. The company has
emphasized that its decision will be based on commercial and legal
considerations. The SEC filing includes forward-looking statements,
cautioning that they are subject to risks and uncertainties that
could impact the company's financial health and future
operations.
Opus Genetics advances its pipeline, completing VEGA-3 trial
enrollment and nearing full enrollment for LYNX-2. It received FDA
Fast Track designation and dosed its first pediatric patient in a
gene therapy trial. Financially, the company launched a $40 million
equity program, revised executive compensation, and scheduled its
2025 stockholder meeting.
PATENT
DELHI HC RULES IN FAVOR OF PHILIPS IN SEP INFRINGEMENT CASE
The Delhi HC has ruled in favor of Philips against Indian DVD
manufacturers Pearl Engineering Company, Powercube Infotech, and
Siddharth Optical Disc Private Ltd. (Defendants) for infringing its
standard-essential patent (SEP) covering Eight-to-Fourteen
Modulation Plus (EFM+) coding. The HC found that the Defendants
knowingly used Philips' patented technology without a license
and were unwilling licensees, holding them liable for aggravated
damages. While the patent expired in February 2015, making an
injunction impossible, the ruling reinforces India's position
as a strong venue for SEP enforcement.
This judgment marks a significant win for SEP owners in India,
aligning with global legal standards on FRAND principles. Legal
experts highlight that the decision affirms the Indian
judiciary's commitment to protecting intellectual property
rights, ensuring that infringers face serious consequences. As
India continues integrating with global IP frameworks, this case
sets an important precedent for future patent disputes, signaling
the necessity of proper licensing in standardized technology
industries.
1.Koninklijke Philips N.V. V. Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr (Cs(Comm) 423/2016 & I.As. 18701/2014, 20810/2014, 3550/2021), Koninklijke Philips N.V. Koninklijke Philips N.V. G.S Kohli & Ors (Cs(Comm) 499/2018 & I.As. 3258/2017, 3509/2021), Koninklijke Philips N.V V. Surinder Wadhwa & Ors (Cs(Comm) 519/2018 & I.As. 10541/2012, 16494/2018, 3549/2021)
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.
