Keep up with the ever-changing world of IP with SpicyIP’s Weekly Review! Wrapping up March with a busy week, here is a quick glance at the 11 posts- that include posts declaring the winners of the 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on IP Law, a two part post explaining how an LLM works, DHC’s decision to refuse an injunction to Roche in the Risdipalm case, and another two part post on the BHC’s decision in the Karan Johar personality rights case. This and much 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
In a fantastic 2 part post teasing apart how Large Language Models actually work, Shivam Kaushik gets down and dirty with the technical details of the algorithmic training process and explains why there are copyright implications beyond the ‘obvious’. In this first part, Shivam explains each part of the “G” “P” T” in ChatGPT actually does, and then takes forward why this is relevant.
Continuing from his earlier post, where he explains the technical workings of Large Language Models vis-a-vis where different copyright questions arise, in this post Shivam Kaushik argues that LLMS are in effect interacting with non-expressive parts of the works in question. Further, he questions whether even a Text Data Mining Exception is required in the Indian Copyright Act.
Announcing the Winners of the 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on Intellectual Property Law!
We are delighted to announce the results of the 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on IP Law. We received several excellent submissions across a wide range of topics, and at the end, it was just 1 mark separating 1st place from 2nd, and 2nd place from 3rd! Read the post for the detailed announcement.
Injunction against Natco refused: Public Interest Triumphs – Maybe
In what seems to be a significant, yet currently uncertain victory for SMA patients, Delhi HC refused to grant an injunction against Natco for the generic version of the drug Risdiplam on 24th March. And today, Roche seems to have appealed against the same already, with Natco undertaking not to launch till the date of next hearing. Yogesh Byadwal in this post analyses the order denying injunction in favour of Roche, weighing in on the public interest factor amongst others.
Can a movie carrying the name of a personality be restrained from release citing infringement of personality rights? This is exactly what has happened with the movie “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”. Acclaimed director Karan Johar in a case against India Pride Advisory & Ors. successfully argued that the film’s title unlawfully associated him with the project, misleading the public. In Part 1 of her post, Tejaswini Kaushal analyses the issues and observations made by the Court in granting an injunction against the film.
Do the Courts weigh in favour of personality rights often and is this the correct approach to adopt? The case around the movie “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” has once again opened up the debate of balancing the protection of celebrity’ personality rights and the freedom of expressions and parodical use. In Part 2 of her post, Tejaswini Kaushal discusses past precedents and deviations in leading personality rights cases.
Other Posts
DHC recently remanded a patent rejection order to the IPO, which had rejected the application due to the applicant’s failure to submit a written statement on time. The Court directed the IPO to pass a fresh order, considering the reply to the FER, submissions during the hearing, and the belated written statement. With an extension already been given, can the Controller be directed to consider this information? What does this reveal about the quality of patent grant/rejection orders? Suhani Chhaperwal explores these questions in this tidbit.
A Big Win for Dalit Researchers: Implications for IP
The Bombay HC deservedly provided monetary relief to Dalit researchers for the theft of their research data. However, from an IP perspective the judgment deserves some scrutiny like – can research data be protected under IP laws? Or does equating IP with tangible property risk distorting its fundamental purpose? Yogesh Byadwal seeks to answer these questions in his post arguing “intangible property” and not “intellectual property” would have been the correct classification for the data in question.
CRI Guidelines 2025 is out for Public Consultations!
The Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRI), 2025, has been published for public consultation. Interestingly, several recent cases such as Ferid Allani, Microsoft Tech Licensing, and others find mention in the “notable jurisprudence” section. Interested stakeholders can provide their comments on the guidelines by April 15, 2025. Read the post for more details.
[Part I] Safe Harbor in Jeopardy? Why the Delhi HC’s Amazon Verdict Raises Red Flags
The DHC’s recent judgment imposing 300+ crores as damages on Amazon was one of the biggest such sums seen in such cases! However, in doing so, KHUSHI JAIN and Vishno Sudheendra argue that the Court mistakenly ventured onto the path of discussing intermediary liability and safe harbor exception, and in the process raise some concerns with the finding.
[Part II] Assessing DHC’s Finding on Piercing the Corporate Veil and Damages in the Amazon Case
Continuing the discussion on the DHC decision in the Amazon case, KHUSHI JAIN and Vishno Sudheendra analyse the Court’s findings on lifting the corporate veil and damages. Did the Court blur the lines between distinct legal entities? And do the damages awarded truly reflect compensatory principles, or are they more akin to notional damages? Part II unpacks these critical questions.
Case Summaries
The plaintiff company filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the registered ‘WONDER’ mark. Both the plaintiff and defendant were in a similar line of business. The defendants did not file a written statement. The Court held that the plaintiff has proved that they are the registered proprietor of the ‘WONDER’ word mark and that the mark of the defendant is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. The Court passed a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant restraining use of the mark.
The suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of copyright and passing off of their services as those of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs adopted the mark ‘APNA’ operating a website providing opportunities to job seekers. The plaintiffs alleged use of similar domain names and mirroring of their website by the defendants. The defendants did not file a written statement. The Court held that the plaintiffs were able to prove the use of the aforesaid mark and associated services. The Court passed a summary judgment decreeing in favour of the plaintiffs.
Rajani Products vs Bhagwan Das Harwani on 19 March, 2025 (Rajasthan High Court)
The writ petition was filed by the plaintiff seeking interim orders restraining the respondents from using the term ‘SWASTIK’. The application for interim injunction was rejected by the District Court. However, in a separate suit with the same subject matter, the plaintiffs were granted an interim injunction against another firm. The plaintiff argued that since these were identical matters, the district court ought to have taken similar views. None appeared on behalf of respondents. The Court quashing the District Court order noted that since the Court had entertained an identical and similar temporary injunction application, using identical trademark, there was no reason for the Court to take a different view in the instant case. The Court also noted that the mark used by defendants was also visually, phonetically, structurally and deceptively similar to the petitioner’s registered trade mark.
Applause Entertainment Private vs Www.9Xmovies.Com.Tw & Ors. on 19 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Applause Entertainment filed a suit against multiple rogue websites illegally streaming and distributing its copyrighted web series Undekhi Season 3 without authorization. The Delhi High Court, recognizing these websites as infringing platforms, granted a dynamic injunction, directing ISPs and government bodies to block the infringing domains and allow future additions of mirror sites without requiring repeated court intervention. The court emphasized the irreparable harm caused to content creators due to piracy, reinforcing the importance of protecting intellectual property in the digital era while upholding precedents set in UTV Software v. 1337X.TO.
Ms Calvin Klein Trademark Trust vs Bhupinder Singh And Anr on 21 March, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust filed a suit against Bhupinder Singh and Ajmeet Singh for selling counterfeit “Calvin Klein” products in Delhi’s Karol Bagh and Gaffar Market. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants, preventing them from using the “Calvin Klein” mark. The court emphasized the importance of protecting well-known trademarks and preventing consumer deception. The court recognized Calvin Klein as a globally renowned brand with significant goodwill. The defendants, by selling counterfeit products, were not only infringing upon intellectual property rights but also deceiving customers into believing they were purchasing authentic goods. The court underscored the need to protect brand integrity and prevent unfair competition, holding that such trademark misuse warranted a strict injunction.
Nike Innovate C.V vs Arun Kumar Sharma on 25 March, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The case at hand involved Nike suing the defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit socks bearing its registered trademarks, including “Nike” and “Nike Air,” in Delhi. The court ruled in favor of Nike, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants, ordering them to cease all infringing activities and pay damages of ₹5,00,000 and ₹10,00,000 respectively. The court reasoned that the defendants’ actions were dishonest attempts to exploit Nike’s goodwill, mislead consumers, and cause financial harm, emphasizing the importance of protecting established brands from counterfeiting.
Levi Strauss And Company vs Vishal And Anr on 25 March, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The case of Levi Strauss & Co. vs. Vishal & Anr. revolves around trademark infringement, where the plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Co., claimed that the defendants were unlawfully using a deceptively similar trademark to its well-known “Arcuate Stitching Design” on jeans. The court ruled in favor of Levi Strauss, holding that the defendants’ actions amounted to passing off and infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court emphasized the strong reputation of the plaintiff’s mark and granted an injunction, highlighting the importance of protecting well-established trademarks from unfair competition.
The Court dismissed Respondent No. 2’s review petition, reaffirming that remedies under Sections 107 and 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, are independent. It held that raising invalidity as a defense in an infringement suit does not preclude filing a revocation petition. While acknowledging minor factual errors, the court clarified they did not affect the judgment. It emphasized that a revocation petition challenges a patent’s validity in rem, whereas a Section 107 defense applies only to a specific suit. The ruling upheld the petitioner’s right to seek revocation separately while ensuring procedural fairness.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors vs Amresh Kamat on 20 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff alleged infringement of its Verizon well known trademark by the defendant. It alleged that by adopting a deceptively similar mark, the defendant is trying to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and cause confusion in the public. The Court held that the plaintiff has made a prima facie case in its favor and passed an ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendant from using the Verizon mark.
The Supreme Industries Limited vs Supreme Drip System on 19 March, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s “Supreme Drip System” was deceptively similar to its “Similar” trademark. Despite being served with the notice, the defendant didn’t appear and the matter proceeded ex parte. Considering the above, the plaintiff prayed for a summary judgement. Relying on Order VIII Rule 10, the Court held that the matter was fit for a summary judgement and upon comparing the marks held that the defendant’s mark is visually, structurally, and deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “Supreme Mark” and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The Court also imposed costs of INR 2.25 Lakhs on the defendant and allotted damages worth INR 5 Lakhs to the plaintiff.
PVH Corp vs Samir Khan on 22 March, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed its “Van Heusen” mark by adopting an alleged deceptively similar mark “Sam Heusen”. The defendant argued that the mark is short for his name “Samir Khan” and ‘Heusen’ from his forefathers’ name being Hussain. He also argued that the court does not have territorial jurisdiction to heart the matter. After the trial, the Court held that the defendant’s products were available in markets of Parliament Street, Barakhamba Road, Chanakyapuri, Gole Market, Khan Market, Bengali Market and Connaught Place and thus has the territorial jurisdiction. Relying on a plethora of precedents on deceptive similarity the Court held that ‘Sam Heusen’ resembles ‘Van Heusen’ to a substantial degree, with no cogent explaination from the defendant to adopt “Heusen”. Based on the above, the Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Levi Strauss And Co vs Sharanjeet Singh on 21 March, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was selling counterfeit goods under deceptively similar trademarks like “LEVI’S” and “Two Horse Logo.” The Court granted an ex parte interim injunction, later made permanent, and ordered delivery of infringing goods. Despite summons, the defendants didn’t appear, leading to ex parte proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, citing strong evidence of infringement and passing off, including counterfeit products and unauthorized use of trademarks, causing consumer confusion and damage to the plaintiff’s reputation.
State vs Amit Alawadhi on 20 March, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The respondent was convicted under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trademark Act. The legal issue centered on the manufacturing/sale of spurious automotive parts of TVS Motor Company, leading to copyright and trademark infringement allegations. A raid on the respondent’s shop on November 3, 2018, revealed duplicate TVS products. The prosecution presented evidence including seized goods, trademark, and copyright registrations, and six witnesses to establish that the respondent was in possession of and selling counterfeit goods. Despite the respondent’s plea of not guilty, he presented no defense. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.
An appeal challenged the rejection of the appellant’s patent application. The appellant claimed the respondent made contradictory findings on novelty and inventive step. The respondent clarified that novelty was unproven in the pre-grant opposition but established under Sections 14 and 15 based on different citations. The court upheld the Controller’s finding on novelty and ruled the invention non-obvious, dismissing the appeal.
The rectification was filed by the petitioner seeking removal of the mark “TAJ”. The petitioner argued that the mark “TAJ SOAP” was assigned to the petitioner by the defendant pursuant to mutual consent between the parties to divide the business. The assignment deed also stated that respondent organisation was barred from using deceptively similar or confusing mark. The respondent alleged that the signatory of the assignment deed fraudulently signed the deed as Pradhan when in reality his brother was the Pradhan. The petitioner further stated that due consideration was paid by the petitioner to the respondent organisation for the assignment. The Court rejected the arguments of the defendants directed for the removal of the mark.
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Raj Belts & Ors on 26 March, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademarks, i.e., “LOUIS VUITTON”, the “LV” logo, amongst others. The Local Commissioners found infringing products bearing the plaintiff’s registered trademark from the defendant’s shops. Other defendants except for defendant no. 7 and 8 had entered into a settlement. The aforesaid defendants did not file any written statement. The Court, noting the submissions of the Local Commissioner, concluded that the defendants had infringed upon the plaintiff’s trademark. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.