Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of the posts on Delhi HC’s ruling on Celebrity Rights and the Powers of Regional Directors under Companies Act vis a vis Trademark Similarity. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Celebrity (Rights) in the News Again: Rajat Sharma and Mohan Babu approached the court seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of their personality and publicity rights. The Delhi HC restrained the defendants in both cases from infringing the plaintiff’s personality rights. Read Kaustubh Chakrabarti’s post on these orders by the Delhi High Court!
Other Posts
Can Regional Directors under Companies Act make trademark determinations? Read this Tidbit by Kaustubh Chakrabarti on the Delhi HC ruling that the Regional Director under the Companies Act has no jurisdiction to decide ownership of a trademark.
Call for Submissions: GNLU’s Journal of Law and Technology
Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar is inviting submissions for its Journal of Law and Technology [(ISSN: 3048-9989 (Print)] on a rolling basis. The journal encourages paper submissions focusing on the amalgamation of any area of technology and law. Articles, Essays, and Book Reviews/Case Commentary/Short Notes are invited for submissions!
Case Summaries
Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd vs Medal Electronics P Ltd on 20 December, 2024 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiffs were engaged in the business of trade of electrical goods and appliances and are the proprietors of the trademark ‘GOLDMEDAL’ (both the word per se and the artistic manner) which was acquired in 1979-80 through its predecessor company. They contended that the defendants were engaged in a similar business and were using the mark of ‘MEDAL’ which was phonetically and artistically very similar to their registered trademark. The defendants could neither prove registration of trademark in their label nor did they have a valid license. Moreover, the Court held that the deceptively similar label could provide confusion in the minds of the public. The Court, therefore, granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from using the label ‘MEDAL’.
Ms Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd vs Ms S.R. Traders Ors on 21 December, 2024 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff is engaged in the business of apparel and other allied and cognate goods and are the owners of the trademark ‘LOUIS PHILIPPE’. The defendants are in a similar business and were alleged using deceptively identical marks like ‘LOUIS PHILLIPE’ and ‘LORIS PHILIPPE’. The Court found that the registered trademarks of the plaintiff are in the public domain. The defendants also abandoned their defence in the suit. An ex parte injunction was previously passed against the defendants. Since the defendants did not come forward to put forward any defence, the plaintiff’s submissions were deemed to be admitted. The Court issued a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from using such a mark.
Asics Corporation vs Hardev Group of Shoes on 16 December, 2024 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff is a Japanese Corporation and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading shoes, clothing, sportswear, etc. The plaintiff is the owner of various ASICS formative trademarks/labels in relation to its said goods and business. The defendants are engaged in manufacturing and sale of footwear and have allegedly adopted marks or labels that infringe on the plaintiff’s trademarks. The premises of the defendants were searched and infringed goods bearing impugned labels were seized. The Court found that the plaintiff had successfully proved his case and held it entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant.
Levi Strauss And Co vs Tasleem Ahmad on 21 December, 2024 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff is a company registered in the USA. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of clothing and other accessories under the trademark Levi’s is carrying on its business in Delhi through its exclusive franchise and showrooms. It alleged that the defendant was engaged in manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods bearing infringing trademarks of “Levi’s marks.” The Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to decree of permanent injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff was also awarded punitive damages of Rs. 2,00,000.
Evergreen Sweet House vs Jv Evergreen Sweets and Treats on 23 December, 2024 (Delhi HC)
The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of preparing and selling Indian sweets and savouries, is the owner of a valid and subsisting trademark of ‘EVERGREEN’. The defendants were alleged to be passing off this trademark for unjust business gains. The Court reiterated that there are three elements which are necessary for a passing off action. Goodwill and reputation attained by the plaintiff, misrepresentation by the defendant and the damage caused to the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation by the acts of the defendant. Since all three elements could be proved, the defendant was restrained from using the ‘EVERGREEN’ mark.