Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of the posts on Lemley’s and Henderson’s paper on AI Terms of Use Restrictions, CGPDTM order on the removal of a patent agent, Delhi HC order on disclosure of a PhD and Public Interest Need in Personality Rights cases. 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

Committee Recommends Deregistration of Patent Agent After Professional Misconduct Allegations

The CGPDTM on the recommendation by the Ad-Hoc Committee, has ordered the removal of a Patent agent from the Register of Patent Agents. Key questions as to whether the alleged action by the patent agent was merely negligence or professional misconduct arise from the order. Could the Committee have taken a lenient view in its recommendation? Md Sabeeh Ahmad discusses these issues in his post here.

Other Posts

Navigating Personality Rights – Does Fame Have a Trade-Off?

Are personality rights reserved only for the ultra-famous and elite? Do robust defences – such as freedom of speech, right to livelihood, public interest, and fair use – offer absolute protection against infringements? And, in an age dominated by AI-generated content, deepfakes, and viral 30-second reels spawned by content creators or Jon Does, can the Courts truly provide efficacious relief? With focus on the Delhi HC’s decision in Devi Prasad Shetty vs Medicine Me and other notable cases, Rebecca Cardoso in this post makes the argument for the need of a public interest element as well!

Discussing Lemley and Henderson’s “The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions”

Amid the barrage of lawsuits against GenAI companies, Prof. Lemley and Peter Henderson’s recent paper shifts the GenAI debate towards the terms of use attached to these models. In this post, Yogesh Byadwal argues that these terms of use also offer an insight into the practice of expanding copyright using Contract Law. He then argues their impact on knowledge distillation in the context of Indian GenAI companies.

DHC Directs CIC to Disclose a Ph.D Thesis, Clarifies that it is Not Exempted under the RTI Act

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, in Rajeev Kumar v. Central Information Commission (CIC), overturned an order passed by the CIC pertaining to access a Ph.D. thesis. The Delhi HC in reversing the CIC’s order, emphasised on the ambit of the word “information” under the RTI Act and clarified that a PhD falls within it. Read Aishani Chatterjee’s post discussing key observations made by the Court.

Case Summaries

Ktc India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Himalayan Nomad Ktc And Ors on 8 January, 2025 (Delhi District Court)

The present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark. The plaintiff claimed that the trademark ‘KTC’ was honestly and bonafidely coined and adopted in title of plaintiff i.e. KARACHI TAXI COMPANY, which was founded in the year 1943. The plaintiff claimed adopting the trade mark ‘KTC and its variants’ for services under class 39 of the trademark and is extensively and continuously using the same since 1985 and therefore is a senior and prior adopter of said trademark. The plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants Himalayan Nomad KTC is engaged in providing similar servicesand is also running a website with a similar domain name. The defendant submitted raising objection that suit is not maintainable and that defendant was not aware whether the plaintiff is true and lawful proprietor of trademark ‘KTC’ in respect of the business The defendant also submitted that trademark being used by plaintiff is KTC whereas the business name and style being used by defendant is KTC Tours and Travels. The Court applied the ‘ordinary observer’ test to determine if two works are substantially similar. But during the course of the hearings the defendant undertook to represent himself as Kishore Travels Company Tours & Travels instead of KTC Tours & Travels. The court on the basis of the undertaking granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 

Marriott Worldwide Corporation vs Hotel Marriot Prime & Anr. on 13 December, 2024 (Delhi HC)

The suit was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s trademark and passing off. The plaintiff had acquired numerous registrations in India for the MARRIOTT and MARRIOTT formative marks. In 2023, the plaintiff came across a hotel based in Mumbai, India under the trade name HOTEL PRIME MARRIOT with the exact spelling of ‘MARRIOTT’ as used by the plaintiff in its brand. The plaintiff alleged that this violates the rights vested in the plaintiff’s ‘MARRIOTT’ trademarks. But Defendant No. 2, a marketing/advertising agency acting under the instructions of defendant no.1, submitted that he would have no objection if a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff. The Defendant No. 1 did not participate in the proceedings. The Court held that the infringement being carried out by the defendant no.1 is deliberate and intentional. The Court passed a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 against the defendant.

Rpg Enterprises Limited vs Rpg Industrial Products Pvt Ltd. on 8 January, 2025 (Delhi HC)

The rectification petition was filed seeking removal of trade mark registered in the name of respondent no. l, i.e., RPG Industrial Products Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs have claimed that the acronym “RPG” stands for the initials of R. P. Goenka, founder of the RPG Group. In August, 2018, petitioner was drawn to the trade mark registration in the name of the respondent no.1. It was alleged that respondent no.1 had wrongfully obtained a registration for the impugned mark, which entirely incorporates the RPG Marks of the petitioner. The defendant submitted that the rectification petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not an aggrieved party. The mark or device of respondent no. 1 is entirely distinct and different from that of the petitioner as the respondents mark features a unique combination of colours, lettering style, device elements, artwork, packaging, and overall get-up, which collectively make it inherently distinctive. The mark “RPG” by the defendant is derived from the initials of the founder, Sh. Rajendra Prasad Gupta. The Court in its judgment noted that the petitioner is the prior adopter and user of the mark “RPG”. The Court also noted that the adoption of the impugned mark by the respondent cannot be considered to be honest because the petitioner’s trademark was well-known at the time when the respondent got its mark registered. The Court thereafter ordered the cancellation of the trademark of the defendant.

Other IP Developments

• Zen Technologies secures Indian patent for T-72 CGS military training platform
• Govt amends FTP to make stakeholder consultation mandatory for inclusive decision-making process
• PM Modi unveils genome sequencing data of 10,000 Indians
• MeitY and UNESCO host stakeholder consultation on AI readiness in India

International IP Developments 

• A musician signed to music label Roc Nation, Victory Boyd, has alleged that popular musicians Travis Scott, SZA, and Future incorporated elements of her song without permission in their 2023 collaboration, Telekinesis.
• Meta Platforms used pirated versions of copyrighted books to train its artificial intelligence systems with approval from its CEO Mark Zuckerberg, a group of authors allege
• Shoals Technologies Group Files Additional Patent Infringement Complaint Against Voltage, LLC
• Birkenstock, the German footwear brand famous for its cork-based sandals, has filed three separate lawsuits alleging copyright infringement.