Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summary of the posts on the repudiations against personality rights, Govt. recent circular on procurement of drugs, non-obviousness test under the patents law, and the Hamburg Regional Court’s decision in Robert Kneschke v LAION e.V. 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
In his recent work, Dr. Mo Abolkheir argues that the ‘inventive step’ understanding in the patent law is flawed as it places an emphasis on the inventor’s imaginative capacity rather than the invention itself. Bhuwan Sarine explains this argument and offers his thoughts on Dr. Abolkheir’s approach.
Part I: The Right to Publicity: 31 Years Since Madow’s Scathing Verdict, Yet…….The Show Must Go On?
Higher degree of rights for celebrities? Drawing upon insights from a 1993 seminal paper by Prof. Michael Madow, Akshat Agrawal in this three part post lists out where the justifications for these rights fall flat. In part one of the post he addresses concerns about economic gains and privacy.
Continuing the discussion on over-broad personality rights for celebs, Akshat Agrawal discusses other repudiations against the right, specifically dealing with justifications concerning Deception, and Misappropriation in Part II.
Concluding the three part series, Akshat Agrawal discusses the real implications of granting over-broad personality rights and suggests pointers to rethink Publicity Rights in the present digital age.
Taming the ‘LAION’: Lessons for Harmonising AI and Copyright Law
Unpacking the Hamburg Regional Court’s landmark ruling in Robert Kneschke v. LAION e.V., Tanishka Goswami explores how text data mining can qualify as an exception to copyright infringement. She also evaluates the effectiveness of the Opt-Out Mechanism in protecting creators’ rights. Read her analysis on the evolving intersection of copyright law and AI!
Other Posts
Curing the Rare: Government Issues Tender to Acquire 17 Patented Rare Disease Medicines
The threshold for procuring 127 medicines, including drugs for rare diseases, was raised by the Ministry of Finance in its August 9 circular. Tejaswini Kaushal analyzes this in light of the evolving jurisprudence surrounding rare diseases and the implications of the government’s measure.
In a welcome revision, the Delhi High Court has rolled back its previous stance and clarified that the obligation to serve a counter statement does not fall on the applicant. Read on to learn more!
DHC allows auctioning of “Fortis” TM to realize the decreed amount in the Daiichi-Ranbaxy dispute. Read on to know more!
Case Summaries
Mother Sparsh Baby Care Pvt Ltd vs Aayush Gupta & Ors. on 28 October, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner sought removal of “Plantpowered” trademark from the Trademark register, arguing it to be the same as its “Plant Powered” trademark. The Court held that the petitioner is the prior adopter of the mark and there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks and allowed the petition.
Pneumo Care Health P Ltd vs Oxygun Health P Ltd 5 November, 2024 (Delhi Dsitrict Court)
The plaintiffs, Pneumo Care Health Pvt. Ltd., sought a permanent injunction against Oxygun Health Pvt. Ltd. for using deceptively similar trademarks, “HOSPIGRIP” and “HOSPICUFF,” on medical devices. The Court found that the defendants’ actions constituted infringement and were likely to mislead consumers, leading to the grant of a permanent injunction, damages of ₹3,00,000, and an order for the destruction of infringing products.
Rado Uhren AG and Ors. v. Sandeep Gogia and Ors 5 November 2024 (Delhi District Court)
The plaintiffs, the owners of renowned watch brands like Rado, Tissot, Omega, and Longines, sought a permanent injunction against the defendants selling counterfeit products online. The Court found the defendants’ actions constituted infringement and passing off, leading to public confusion, and granted a permanent injunction, ordering the blocking of defendants’ websites and directing ISPs to restrict access to them.
Senthil Murugan Jewellers Pvt.Limited vs N. Pandurangan on 5 November 2024 (Madras High Court)
This case concerns a trademark dispute over “Senthil Murugan Jewellers” where the revision petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the suit for lack of cause. There was a partition deed that gave Plaintiffs limited use. The petitioners denied this and argued that since they were the registered proprietors, only they had rights over the trademark. Despite this, the Court held that the dissolution deed allowed all parties the option to use the trademark. The court upheld the suit’s cause of action and dismissed the petition.
In this case, an appeal was filed under Section 3(b) and 59 of the Patents Act to overturn a rejection of a patent application by Patent Office. The appellant sought amendment in the patent application which was rejected based on lack of benefit for humanity and major shift in invention’s scope with the proposed amendments. The appellant opposed this and argued that no substantive changes were made. He cited precedents which expounded upon holistic interpretation of a patent’s specifications. The Court held in favour of the appellant and ordered a new examination.
The plaintiff claims to be owner of the trademark “NOISE” and cited significant reputation and valuable goodwill in the market. Multiple awards and sales figures were cited to substantiate the above-mentioned claim. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction and damages for losses. Despite being served a notice, the defendant did not appear in Court. The defendant’s marks were virtually identical, and had phonetic, structural and visual similarities to that of the plaintiff’s impugned mark, “NOISE”. An ex-parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff as the Court found evidence of trademark infringement, passing off and unfair advantage.
Dr Vijay Bajaj vs Union of India on 4 November 2024 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
In this petition, the petitioner sought a court order to prevent editing/morphing or illegally using in any form or sharing of court proceedings through live streamed videos etc. of the High Court. They also sought to ensure deletion/removal of all live streamed court videos/clips/shorts/memes of High Court of Madhya Pradesh which were created and circulated on social media. The petitioner alleged that live-streamed videos were being used inappropriately. The Court took cognisance of this and issued an interim order prohibiting such inappropriate use.
Other IP Developments
- Delhi High Court restrains Aquakind labs from using “Aquakind” mark. Holds it to be deceptively similar to “Mankind” marks.
- Delhi High Court awards INR 7 lakhs to New Balance in as costs and damages in its trademark dispute with Pulkit Khubchandani.
- “BharatBenz” receives well known trademark status.
- Government invites comments on the draft Commercial Courts (Amendment) Bill, 2024.