[Thanks to Aditi, Khushi and Sudhanshu for the case summaries]
Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summary of the posts on the ANI vs OpenAI copyright case, CGPDTM’s office being moved to Delhi, and exemption under Section 107A of the Patents Act. 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
ANI vs OpenAI: India’s Copyright Act is outdated. Can it Deal with New Legal Conundrums?
India’s copyright law does not envision an exception permitting LLM trainings from copyrighted materials. Additionally, it is right-holder centric favouring authors and encouraging them to control the use of their works in new markets. Does that mean the copyright act is outdated and incapable of dealing with new legal conundrums? Aparajita Lath argues that India’s copyright act is not suited to resolve the question in ANI vs OpenAI! (This post was first published on Scroll.)
Other Posts
New Age Office? CGPDTM To Move from Mumbai to Delhi
The Commerce Minister has recently clarified that the seat of the CGPDTM is being shifted from Mumbai to New Delhi. However, the announcement was made through a social media post by the Minister and no official statement has been published on the website. Read for more on this update!
In Incyte Holdings v. Granules India, the Delhi HC recorded a settlement after Granules’ undertaking for exemption under Section 107A a.k.a the Bolar provision. However, the provision which is an exception to patent infringement is often criticised for its broad scope. Tejaswini Kaushal discusses Section 107A and its expansive scope in the background of this case!
The Centre for Intellectual Property Research and Advocacy [CIPRA] of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad is organizing its first blog writing competition in collaboration with us on the theme of Literature, Journalism and IP. The top two entries will be awarded with some cash prizes and also with a chance to be published on the blog! Send your submissions by February 19 and check out the above linked post for the guidelines!
Call for Applications: SpicyIP Tech Innovation Policy Fellowship 2025 (Apply by February 23)
Attention IP and tech enthusiasts! We are very excited to announce the SpicyIP Tech Innovation Policy Fellowship 2025! This Fellowship is a one year programme, with the aim of contributing towards deeper understandings on the law and policy front around new technologies. It has been made possible thanks to a generous grant by FOSS United Foundation, which as many of our readers may know, does some fantastic work in the free and open source software space in India. The deadline is February 23. Read on for more details!
Case Summaries
Astellas Pharma Inc vs Astellaz Pharmaceuticals on 3 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The suit was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its trademark. The plaintiff is the owner of the registered mark “ASTELLAS”. The defendant had applied for registration of the “ASTELLAZ PHARMACEUTICALS” mark to which the plaintiff filed an opposition. The plaintiff also alleged use of a similar domain name by the defendant and listing its product on various e-commerce websites. An ex- parte ad-interim injunction was issued against the defendant previously. The Court held the marks structurally, visually and phonetically similar and therefore nearly identical and granted a permanent injunction. The defendant did not appear in the case.
Oracle America, Inc., vs Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr on 3 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The rectification petition was filed by the plaintiff who hold registration of the mark “JAVA”. The defendant got the impugned mark JAVA T POINT registered. The court had previously granted an interim injunction stating mere addition of the word TPOINT as a suffix to the plaintiff’s mark JAVA does not take away from the fact that JAVA is the prominent part of the impugned mark. The court held that the impugned mark is likely to cause confusion and deception among the consumers and directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the impugned mark of the defendant.
Kas Zanulabin And Co vs Dharamraj Dilabahar on 5 February, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The plaintiff, registered owner of a mark that contained ‘786’ as an essential feature of the mark, filed a suit for infringement against the defendant. The defendant sold similar goods under a trade dress, which includes ‘786’ and other features of the plaintiff’s mark. The Court had previously granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff after which the defendant undertook not to use the impugned mark in question or any other deceptively similar mark as that of the plaintiff. The Court held this to be a clear case of infringement and passing off, which the defendant had admitted by the said affidavit.
Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Ashar Nisar & Ors. on 6 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The suit was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegally and unauthorizedly disseminating and broadcasting the plaintiffs’ works/ content through their rogue websites and mobile applications. The Court had earlier granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. None of the defendants appeared in the suit. The Court held that the defendants indulged in piracy of the copyright content of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from illegally broadcasting and disseminating content owned by the plaintiff.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction against Maskon Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and others for trademark infringement and passing off of the plaintiffs’ registered mark “DROTIN” by using the deceptively similar mark “DROTOWIN.” The plaintiffs having proved the registration of their trademark, the Court found the defendants’ adoption to be dishonest and mala fide. The defendant no. 1 argued that it only manufactured products with the impugned mark for defendant no. 2, and the latter did not appear in the case. The Court issued a summary judgment passing a decree of permanent injunction.
Yug Bite And Vittles Pvt Ltd vs Roll King on 7 February, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff, Yug Bite And Vittles Pvt Ltd, claimed that the defendant’s use of the similar trademark ‘Roll King’ confused consumers and undermined the reputation of the ‘RollsKing’ trademark owned by the plaintiff. The Court had passed an ex-parte interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff on 27.01.2022. The Court held that the plaintiff has established a long-standing use of their trademark, significant market presence, and goodwill, while the defendant’s mark is found to be deceptively similar, therefore passing a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant to prevent further use of ‘Roll King’.
Sir Ratan Tata Trust & Anr. vs Dr. Rajat Shrivastava & Ors. on 7 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
In a trademark and personality rights infringement suit, the plaintiffs, Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Tata Sons, sought relief against the defendants for unauthorized use of the well-known trademarks “TATA” and “TATA TRUSTS,” as well as the well-known personal name and image of Late Ratan N. Tata. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants were falsely claiming association with the plaintiffs by advertising an event titled “Ratan Tata National Icon Award” and soliciting nomination fees, thereby misleading the public and causing irreparable harm to the plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs had established their statutory and common law rights over the trademarks and the well-known personal name Ratan Tata, finding the defendants’ actions to be fraudulent and amounting to infringement, passing off, and dilution. The unauthorized commercial exploitation of Late Ratan Tata’s name and image was also recognized as a violation of personality rights.
The plaintiff in this application sought an interim injunction against the defendants, alleging that the mark “SAMMAAN” was deceptively similar to its registered mark “SVAMAAN” for financial services. The Court held that the plaintiff was the prior adopter and user, and that the competing marks were structurally, phonetically, and conceptually similar, leading to a likelihood of confusion. It rejected the defendants’ claim of bona fide adoption, noting their prior knowledge of the plaintiff’s mark. The Court also emphasized that regulatory approvals do not preclude infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Further, it held that the relevant consumer base includes rural and semi-literate individuals who may not distinguish between the marks, reinforcing the likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and granted interim injunction.
Vibhas Bhutani vs Saurabh Katar on 10 February, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiff proprietor of M/s Zana International, alleged that the defendant infringed on his registered designs for motorcycle accessories and claimed copyright infringement. The defendant had contended that the designs referred to in the plaint are general in nature and were in use even prior to the registration by the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant sold identical products or violated his design and copyright. The Court noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s claims since no expert report was presented to substantiate the infringement claim. The Court dismissed the suit, finding insufficient evidence of infringement.
Shambhu Nath And Brothers And Ors vs Renu Goyal on 10 February, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The suit was filed for infringement of trademark. The petitioners carry out the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling all kinds of fans under their registered mark “TOOFAN”. The defendants filed for registration of the mark “SUPERCOOL TOOFAN” under the same class to which the petitioners have filed an opposition. The Court held the marks to be prima facie deceptively similar with every possibility of confusion and deception. Holding that the defendant is trying to ride on the petitioner’s goodwill, the court passed an order for interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Rahul Bose on 11 February, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
Louis Vuitton Malletier filed a suit against Rahul Bose, owner of the LUXANOVA platform, for selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton products. The Court noted that the plaintiff had established statutory and common law rights over its trademarks on account of long usage and has also been able to show its goodwill and reputation in respect of these marks. It held that the defendant’s sale of counterfeit goods amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction and awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000.
Rosburn Holdings Limited & Anr vs Registrar Of Trademarks on 11 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The appellants challenged the rejection of their trademark application (No. 4740992), before the Delhi High Court, under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which was based on a prior cited mark (No. 3324452 in Class 42). However, the prior mark based on which the appellant’s trademark application was cancelled in a related case on the same day. The Court restored the appellants’ application and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to reconsider the same.
Monster Energy Company vs Krishna Trading Co. And Ors on 12 February, 2025 (Delhi District Court)
The Delhi District Court issued an ex-parte judgment from a case heard involving Monster Energy Company against Krishna Trading Co. and others. The plaintiff, Monster Energy, filed the suit for trademark and copyright infringement, claiming that the defendants were manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods bearing Monster’s trademarks. Defendant No. 1 had entered into a settlement with the plaintiff and the other defendants did not participate in the proceedings. The Court, based on the local commissioner’s report, found sufficient evidence of infringement, awarding damages of Rs. 70,000 to the plaintiff, and ordered a permanent injunction against the defendants.