HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MONTH
IP infringement suit dismissed for not complying with the mandate of pre-institution mediation
[Novenco Buidling & Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Neut. Cit. No. 2024:HHC:7518)]
Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected a suit for infringement of designs and patents on the ground that the plaintiff had not exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation.
In this case, as per the plaintiff, the cause of action last arose in December, 2023 but the suit was filed in June 2024 without following the mandate of the Pre-institution mediation.
Considering the above-mentioned factual matrix, the Hon'ble Court held that since there is no urgency pleaded in the suit, the plaintiff was obligated to avail the remedy of pre-institution mediation as contemplated in Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Delhi High Court grants Rs. 10 lacs damages to Taj Hotel
[The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Manoj (Neut. Cit. No. 2024:DHC:6560)]
Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Taj Hotel ("Plaintiff") for infringement of their intellectual property rights by the defendant.
In this case, the defendant had, without any authorisation, used the Plaintiff's registered trademark "TAJ" as part of his business name, domain name and website. The defendant had also used, without any authorisation, various contents and photographs available on the Plaintiff's website. The defendant had also defrauded a person to the tune of Rs. 51 Lacs by impersonating as Plaintiff.
In these facts, the Hon'ble Court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant. The Court also granted damages to the tune of Rs. 10 Lacs and Cost of Rs. 5 Lacs in favour of the Plaintiff.
The Delhi High Court grants interim injunction against T-Series
[Vishesh Films (P) Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (Neut. Cit. No. 2024:DHC:6704)]
Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, restrained T-series ("Defendant") from using the title "Tu hi Aashiqui/ Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai" and/or any other name/title which uses the mark "Aashiqui", in respect of its proposed film.
In this case, Vishesh Films (P) Ltd. ("Plaintiff") and the Defendant had entered into an agreement for co-production of first film of the Aashiqui Franchise. Thereafter, the parties entered into another similar agreement for the "Aashiqui 2."
It was the case of the Plaintiff that since both the parties are joint owners of the "Aashiqui Franchise" therefore, the Defendant shall not be allowed to release any sequel of the franchise without the Plaintiff's express consent. Therefore, to avoid any public confusion, the Defendant cannot use any title with the word Aashiqui in it.
The Defendant contended that the word "Aashiqui" is generic/ descriptive/ nondistinctive and/or common to trade and also that there is no deceptive similarity between the mark "Aashiqui" and the Defendant's proposed film title, i.e., "Tu hi Aashiqui"/"Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai". Defendant also contended that the proposed film has a different plot, and hence, the proposed film would not be perceived as a part of the Aashiqui Franchise.
On facts, the Hon'ble Court observed that the plot of the proposed film is largely undisclosed and hence, the claims are only based on title of the proposed film. The Hon'ble Court also stated that "Aashiqui" is a suggestive mark that has acquired distinctiveness and goodwill through its association with the successful Aashiqui Franchise. Given that the proposed film title displays the word "Aashiqui" as its dominant and most distinctive element, it is highly likely to be associated with the Aashiqui Franchise. Therefore, the Hon'ble Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from using a title with Aashiqui word in it.
The Supreme Court of cancels compensation award to land buyers with no legal claim
[Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi (Dead By Lrs.) and Ors., (Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024)]
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court overturned a Karnataka High Court ruling that awarded 30% of land acquisition compensation to ten individuals who had purchased plots from REMCO, a Cooperative Society without having a valid title.
The dispute involved a piece of land in Kempapura Agrahara, Bangalore. This land originally belonged to one BC Subbalakshmamma, who transferred ownership to the Appellant, Lakshmesh M., through a registered sale deed in 1975.
The REMCO Society (Respondent) claimed rights over part of this land, but its claims were rejected by the trial court.
Subsequently, Karnataka High Court had confirmed the Appellant's ownership and declared that the Society had no legal claim over the property. Despite this, the High Court awarded 30% of the compensation for the land acquired for a Metro Rail Project constructed over the subject land, to ten individuals (Other Respondents) who had bought sites from the REMCO Society.
The Supreme Court found that the Other Respondents had never filed a claim for compensation nor challenged the High Court's confirmation of the Appellant's ownership.
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had erred in awarding compensation to these individuals who neither claimed not proved any legal entitlement to it. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and ruled that the full compensation should be paid solely to the rightful owner i.e. the Appellant.
To view the full Newsletter, please click here.
Originally published in September 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.
