[This weekly review is co-authored with SpicyIP intern Pranav Aggarwal. Pranav is a second-year student pursuing B.A.LL.B.(Hons) at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.]
Beat the ‘Monday Blues’ with our recap of IP developments from last week. Do read our summaries of the post on the DHC restraining generic competitors for Ibrunitib, Delhi High Court’s finding on opposition and examination process, and some quick tidbits on the Ram Mandir, Oppo-Nokia dispute settlement, and the Bombay High Court order on Pan cards.
Highlights of the Week
The Ibrunitib Saga: DHC Restrains Generic Competitors, but What about Public Interest?
In a major development concerning the Ibrutinib patent, DHC restrains generic manufacturers from manufacturing and marketing the life-saving anti-cancer drug. But what about the public interest? Read Tejaswini’s post to know more.
Delhi High Court Clarifies that Opposition and Examination Run on Parallel Tracks
In a patent dispute concerning the heart failure medication Valsartan-Sacubitril, the DHC clarified that Oppositions and Examinations run on parallel tracks and cannot converge at any point. Read Yogesh’s post to know more about the judgment!
(SpicyIP Tidbit)Nokia- Oppo SEP Litigation: The Dust (Dispute) Finally Settles!
Tech giants Nokia and Oppo enter into a cross-licensing agreement ending their patent disputes across multiple jurisdictions! Read SpicyIP tidbit on this development.
Other Posts
Journey Through “Decembers” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present)
Sit back, relax, and sift through the pages of December’s posts on SpicyIP this weekend! Here is another round of SpicyIP flashbacks by Lokesh, where he looks into Rahul Cherian’s legacy regarding Copyright Disability Exceptions, National Pharmaceutical Policies and Drug Pricing, and the complicated relationship between Taxation and IP.
SpicyIP Tidbit: Bombay High Court Issues Dynamic Injunction to Protect National Interests!
Read the SpicyIP tidbit by Pranav on the Bombay High Court dynamic injunction order against websites imitating PAN card service providers.
The Delhi High Court Restrains “Khadi Organic” from Selling Ram Mandir Consecration Prasad. Have fun with our SpicyIP tidbit on the order!
SWAYAM (Free) Online Course on Intellectual Property being offered by NLU Delhi from January 08 to April 30. Last date to Register: 29th February 2024
Case Summaries
The appellant filed an appeal against the Registrar’s dismissal of its opposition to the Respondent’s Premier League lion device arguing the same to be deceptively similar to its registered premier devices. The court assessed the competing marks and observed that there is nothing similar between the two marks except use of the word premier and reiterated the anti-dissection principle’s application on device/ composite marks. On the basis of the above reasoning, the court rejected the appeal.
Infiniti Retail Limited vs M/S Croma and Ors. on 19 January, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for operating the impugned Croma websites and defrauding people by charging them money under the pretext of offering part time jobs. Previously, an interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff. Since the defendants did not appear in the matter, the court passed a permanent injunction order against the defendants, inter alia blocking the impugned websites.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd vs Devender Kumar on 19 January, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant’s unauthorized use of the suit patent Liquid Composition of Pendimethalin and Metribuzin. The plaintiff argued that the description of the defendant’s product matches the claims of the plaintiff’s product and the defendant has obtained a “me too” registration under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which is granted only when there exists a prior registration under Section 9(3) of the Act. On the basis of the above arguments, the court passed the present interim injunction order.
Dilip Kumar Jain Alias Dilip Kumar vs Vikas D. Jain & Ors on 18 January, 2024 (Calcutta High Court)
The plaintiff filed the present suit alleging that the defendant’s “Nakoda Sumeet” mark is deceptively similar to its “MI Sumeet” mark. Assessing the two marks, the court held them to be deceptively similar and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc vs John Doe And Others on 24 January, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, a venture capital firm, filed an application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant for trademark infringement. The court held that prima facie, the defendant has been using the plaintiff’s company name without any authorisation to draw customers to their website and passed the present ex-parte an interim injunction order.
The plaintiff filed an injunction application against the defendant alleging infringement of their registered design and for passing off in relation to the plaintiff’s product, K-BIND. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s mark, K-RAP, would be deceptively similar in its meaning to the plaintiff’s mark. Additionally, the overall appearance of the defendant’s product was also similar argued to the plaintiff’s product. Assessing the above, the court passed the present order granting an ex-parte interim injunction to the plaintiff.
Seagate Technology Llc vs Daichi International on 24 January, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff filed an interim injunction application against the defendant for importing, rebranding and selling the plaintiff’s products under its own brand name. The plaintiff argued that such an act was against Section 30(4) of the Trademark Act, 1999. Granting an ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, the court also appointed a local commission to ascertain the extent to which the plaintiff’s products have been imported and stocked by the defendant.
Optimus Drugs Private Limited vs Union Of India on 12 December, 2023 (Madras High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition to reconstitute a fresh opposition board to consider the additional evidence submitted by the 4th defendant in the post-grant oppositions to the plaintiff’s patent. The court took note that after the recommendation of the Board were given, the respondent submitted additional documents and also amended the claims which were subsequently published. Thus in light of the principle of natural justice and to remove the possibility of bias, the court held that a fresh opposition board should be constituted.
A suit was filed for declaration and damages by the plaintiff for its copyright over certain music videos and its infringement by the defendants. The court held that the exclusive copyright of the plaintiff has been established in a previous suit and thus, the defendants do not have independent right to telecast the music videos. The court granted the cost of the suit along with the declaration of the ownership of the copyright to the plaintiff but did not provide damages since the plaintiff did not let in any evidence to prove that they have suffered damages on account of the infringement by the defendants.
Novex Communications v. Trade Wings Hotel on 24 January 2024 (Bombay High Court)
In a joint order addressing one common question in a plethora of suits, the Bombay High Court held that assignees/ exclusive licensees like Novex Communications and Phonographic Performance Ltd. are entitled to collect royalties and can issue licenses, despite not being a copyright society. The court held that the rights of an owner under Section 30 to grant any interest in the copyright cannot be curtailed by the rights of a copyright society under Section 33 and reiterated that “a Copyright Society is to assist the owner and not take away rights from an owner.”
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
- Ireland to hold Unified Patent Court referendum in June.
- The European Parliament’s legal affairs committee has backed the European Commission’s plan to overhaul the EU’s framework for standard-essential patents.
- University of Arizona to work towards building AI tutors for students, after the agreement with OpenAI.
- EU court restricts a spare parts manufacturer from using the Audi 4 rings trademark.