TRADEMARK
DELHI HC GRANTS INJUNCTION TO BHARATPE
BharatPe (Plaintiff), filed a lawsuit against BharatPay
(Defendant) for trademark infringement and passing off in the Delhi
HC. In January 2025, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant had
adopted a mark similar to its own "BHARATPAY", along with
the domain name "www.bharatpay.net" and a mobile
application offering services identical to those of Plaintiff.
Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the case, observed that the
Defendant's mark was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's
registered mark, presenting a clear risk of consumer
confusion.
Consequently, the HC, recognizing the Plaintiff's rights,
granted them an ad-interim injunction against the Defendant.
Further, to protect the Plaintiff's intellectual property, the
HC ordered the suspension of the infringing domain name and
blocking of the Defendant's associated phone number.
Additionally, the Court directed internet service providers to
block access to the infringing website.
1. Resilient Innovations (P). Ltd. v. M/s Bharat Pay & Ors, CS(COMM) 267/2025
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC CANCELS REGISTRATION OF MARK "PURPLLE TREE"
Manash Lifestyle (Petitioner), an online beauty and wellness
store, filed a rectification petition in classes 4 and 14 against
Viraj Harjai (Respondent) for infringing its registered mark
"PURPLLE". During a routine search on the trademark
registry, the Petitioner discovered the Respondent had filed a
trademark application for the mark "PURPLLE TREE" in
class 3, which was objected to due to the Petitioner's existing
mark. Further investigation revealed that the Respondent had sought
registration of the same mark in classes 4 and 14 on a
proposed-to-be-used basis. The Petitioner argued that "PURPLLE
TREE" was deceptively similar to its well-established
"PURPLLE" mark, which could lead to consumer confusion
and unfair competition.
The Delhi HC, agreeing with the Petitioner's contention,
observed that a comparison of the two marks revealed that the
Respondent's mark was deceptively similar and could mislead
consumers into believing there was an association with the
Petitioner. Additionally, the HC ruled that the Respondent's
mark was a dishonest adoption with only minimal distinguishing
features and was registered on a "proposed-to-be-used"
basis, without evidence of actual use. As a result, the Delhi HC
ordered the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the "PURPLLE
TREE" mark from the register.
1. Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs. Viraj Harjai, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 212/2024
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC RULES IN FAVOR OF L'ORÉAL
L'Oréal, a French multinational personal care
company, through its Indian subsidiary L'Oréal India
Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff), filed a lawsuit in the Delhi HC against the
Defendants for infringing its registered trademark
"L'Oréal". The Defendants were operating a
domain under the name "www.lorealglobal.in" which was a
replica of the Plaintiff's domain. Additionally, the Defendants
used professional email addresses to impersonate themselves as the
Plaintiff's employees. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants
were committing fraud and misleading potential consumers and
businesses by posing as the official representatives of the
Plaintiff.
The Delhi HC passed a decree in favor of the Plaintiff, directing
NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India) not to permit any domain
registration under extensions related to the
"L'Oréal" mark. Additionally, the Plaintiff
was awarded costs of one lakh rupees.
1. L'Oréal S.A vs. Ashok Kumar and & Ors., CS(COMM) 474/2021, I.A. 12603/2021, I.A. 12608/2021, I.A. 12609/2021 & I.A. 47983/2024
COPYRIGHT
UK AUTHORS WRITE TO THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST META
The Society of Authors has written an open letter to Lisa Nandy, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, urging the UK government to hold Meta accountable for alleged copyright infringement. The letter is in response to an article published by The Atlantic on March 20, 2025, detailing claims that Meta used pirated works from the Library Genesis database to train its AI model, Llama 3, without authors' consent or remuneration. This infringement affects UK authors, including writers, illustrators, and translators, who are concerned about the unauthorized use of their works. The authors have called for immediate government action to ensure that global tech companies like Meta are held responsible for exploiting copyrighted material. They are demanding that Meta executives be summoned before Parliament to address the allegations and provide assurances that authors' rights will be respected in the future. The letter is signed by prominent authors, including Richard Osman, Val McDermid, Sir Kazuo Ishiguro, and many others.
PATENT
NOKIA & AMAZON SETTLE PATENT DISPUTE
Nokia and Amazon have settled their worldwide patent dispute
over the alleged misuse of Nokia's streaming video technology
in Amazon's Prime Video and Twitch services. The settlement
resolves all patent litigation between the two companies, including
Amazon's countersuit in the U.S. claiming Nokia infringed its
cloud computing patents.
The dispute started with Nokia filing lawsuits against Amazon in
multiple countries, accusing them of using its technology for
high-quality video streaming without proper licensing. In response,
Amazon filed a countersuit regarding its cloud computing
technology. Both companies, now given the settlement, have signed a
multi-year patent agreement. However, the terms of the settlement
remain confidential.
PATENT
INITIAL VICTORY FOR FUJIFILM, BUT KODAK WINS ON REVOCATION
In a recent ruling, the Mannheim local division of the Unified
Patent Court (UPC), Germany, FujiFilm secured an initial victory
against Kodak, with the Court ruling that Kodak must cease selling
its SONORA XTRA-3 printing plates in Germany, due to infringement
of FujiFilm's patent EP 35 11 174. The Court also ordered Kodak
to pay damages in Germany. However, the Court ruled that FujiFilm
cannot claim damages for infringement of this patent in other
European countries where the patent protection had lapsed before
1st June 2023.
In a mixed result, Kodak succeeded in its counterclaim for
revocation of FujiFilm's patent EP 3476616, with the Court
revoking the patent due to a lack of inventive steps. While Kodak
has appealed the injunction issued by the Mannheim Court in EP
3511174, the outcome reflects a balance of victories for both
companies. The next round of proceedings will determine whether the
ruling on EP 35 11 174 will also apply to the UK part of the
patent.
PATENT
NIKE AWARDED $ 355,000 AS DAMAGES
In January 2023, Nike initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Lululemon Athletica, alleging that Lululemon's Chargefeel Mid, Chargefeel Low, Blissfeel, and Strongfeel shoe designs violated Nike's patents, specifically concerning advancements in athletic shoe design and its Flyknit technology. On 10th March, a New York (NY) federal jury reached a verdict, finding that Lululemon's Chargefeel, Strongfeel, and Blissfeel shoe lines did infringe upon Nike's patent related to general athletic shoe design innovations. However, the jury rejected Nike's claims regarding the alleged infringement of its Flyknit technology patent. Consequently, the Court awarded Nike $355,000 in damages for the infringement claims.
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.
