Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of the posts on India’s Top IP Developments in 2024, a potential trade secret litigation at the Delhi HC and Screenwriters Rights Association of India’s registration as Copyright Society. 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
A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2024
2024 has been an explosive year for IP developments in India, with more IP divisions coming up in different High Courts, an increasing number of IP registrations and an overall higher degree of attention on IP issues in the country. Like previous years, we once again bring to you our list of top IP developments that have happened across the year!
Other Posts
SpicyIP Tidbit: Revisiting Trade Secrets in the Light of The Delhi High Court’s Decision in the Navigators Logistics Case
A Division Bench (DB) of the Delhi HC provided relief to the Appellants whose Plaint was rejected in 2018 for failure to disclose cause of action. The single bench in 2018, while rejecting the Plaint, had noted that there existed no confidentiality in the alleged list that was claimed to be a trade secret. The Court has now accepted the Plaint, setting the stage for an interesting trial on trade secrets and confidential information. Read Kaustubh Chakrabarti’s post on this development.
Screenwriters Rights Association of India Gets Registered as a Copyright Society
Screenwriters Rights Association of India (SRAI), a society to protect and promote rights of Indian screenwriters, has been registered as a Copyright Society. As the newest Copyright Society, this gives the SRAI, legal authority to grant licenses for screenwriters’ work, collect royalties on their behalf, enter into agreements with foreign societies, amongst others. Read this post by Aditi Agrawal on this development!
Case Summaries
Candico (I) Limited vs T.R. Kohli, Trading As T.R. Kohli And on 13 December, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
An appeal was filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks allowing the respondent’s opposition and refusing the appellant’s GUMBO’ mark. The Court opined that the appellant placed sufficient evidence on record showing that the mark “JUMBO GUMBO” was being used by it through its predecessor since 1996. Additionally, the defendant’s pending application for the mark “JUMBO” was treated to have been abandoned by the Registrar of Trade Marks on 5th March, 2016. The Court therefore ruled that the opposition to registration cannot be sustained for the aforesaid reasons and directed the Trade Marks Registry to accept and proceed with the registration of the trademark “JUMBO GUMBO”.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission vs Ms. Aparna Mallick And Anr. on 20 December, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The suit was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s well-known “Khadi” trademark. The defendants allegedly used the website http://www.khadisaree.com displaying the impugned marks ‘KHADISAREE’. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant was misrepresenting polyester sarees as “Khadi cotton sarees”. On 13th August 2024, theCourt granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant. On December 20, the Court held that the defendant took unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s well-known trademark and passed a decree of permanent injunction from using the word ‘KHADI’ in any form including domain name and email address. The Court also awarded damages and costs amounting to INR 5,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited vs The Controller General Of Patents And … on 12 December, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The appeal was filed against the Controller’s order refusing to restore the appellant’s lapsed Patent. The patent was granted on 23rd August, 2022 but the appellant failed to pay the first renewal fee before the prescribed date as well as the extended date due to an exigency in the family of the appellant’s attorney. The Assistant Controller subsequently ceased the patent. The appellant thereafter filed an application for restoration of the patent within the permissible period of 18 months from the date on which the patent ceased. The Court noted that once the restoration application was filed by the appellant in a timely manner, the Assistant Controller should have taken a liberal view of the matter and should have restored the patent. The Court directed the Assistant Controller to restore the granted patent.
Glaxo Group Limited vs Gurmukh Kapoor, Trading As Levotic on 20 December, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The suit was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s trademark “Betnovate” and copyright. . The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was selling its products bearing the deceptively similar mark ‘BETNOTIC-N’ with similar packaging. After issuance of legal notice to the defendant, he responded that he ceased use of the similar mark. In September, 2022, the defendant was found to be using a new similar mark BETATIC-N with similar packaging. On 11th November, 2022, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining use of the ‘BETNOTIC-N’ and BETATIC-N mark. The defendant thereafter undertook to not use similar packaging. The Court noted the similarity in the colour combination as well as packaging of the products sold by the defendant. The Court accepting the apology and undertaking of the defendant, passed a decree of permanent injunction and also awarded costs amounting to ₹4,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff.
Other IP Developments
- Delhi High Court Directs Social Media Platform To Take Down Clips Of Mirchi’s Kareena Kapoor-Khan Talk Show In Copyright Infringement Claim
- Man arrested in 1987 for copyright violation discharged from case due to lack of evidence
- The Bombay High Court has ordered a fresh review of Trade Mark Office’s refusal to Audi AG’s ‘Q6’ trademark
- Businessman and former Shark Tank Judge Ashneer Grover trademarks his name