Standard Essential Patents
Delhi High Court awards Rs 244 crore damages to Ericsson against Lava for infringement of its Standard Essential Patents
In the present case, a cross-suit was filed, wherein plaintiff, Lava International Ltd. (‘Lava’) alleged that the suit patents were neither valid in terms of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘the Act’) nor essential, rendering them unenforceable; and respondent, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (‘Ericsson’) alleged that Lava was infringing its Standard Essential Patents (‘SEPs’). Amit Bansal, J.*, held that Lava was liable to pay Rs 244,07,63,990 as damages, along with interest at 5% p.a., to Ericsson for infringement of its SEPs. The Court further held that the first suit patent asserted by Ericsson, i.e., IN 203034, was invalid and liable to be revoked both on grounds of non-patentable subject matter and lack of novelty. The remaining seven suit patents, i.e., IN 203036, IN 234157, IN 203686, IN 213723, IN 229632, IN 240471 and IN 241747 were held to be valid, after examination on merits in respect of subject matter eligibility, novelty and inventive step. Read more
Trade Mark Infringement
‘Classic instance of triple identity’: Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction in favour of Heifer Project International in a trade mark infringement dispute
Heifer Project International-Plaintiff filed a present suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, thereby preventing them from using any trade marks and logos that were deceptively similar or nearly identical to plaintiff. Sanjeev Narula, J.*, opined that the present case was a classic instance of ‘triple identity’. The impugned trade marks were nearly identical, as were the areas of operation, and the segments of the public they targeted. Therefore, the defendants’ use of these nearly identical and deceptively similar marks was certain to cause deception and confusion among the general public. Read more
‘Fair and Handsome’ v. ‘Glow and Handsome’; Calcutta HC rules in favour of Emami in Passing Off Dispute Against Hindustan Unilever
In a suit for infringement and passing off under Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘TM Act’), filed by Emami Limited (‘Emami’), a well-established company in the men’s skincare industry, against Hindustan Unilever Limited (‘Hindustan Unilever’), seeking relief against Hindustan Unilever for their use of the mark “Glow and Handsome,” claiming it bore striking resemblance to Emami’s renowned brand “Fair and Handsome.” Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. granted relief to Emami for passing off, despite Emami failing to prove infringement, and noted the similarity between the marks “Fair and Handsome” and “Glow and Handsome,” recognizing the potential for confusion among the customer and that the intentional adoption of a mark resembling Emami’s, despite lack of infringement, suggested an attempt by Hindustan Unilever to benefit from Emami’s goodwill. Read more
Delhi High Court restrains food outlets from using marks similar to “Domino’s”; directs Zomato, Swiggy to de-list them
The present suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of plaintiffs’ trade marks “Domino’s Pizza”, and, and passing off, etc. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants 1 to 8 were perpetrating fraud on the public by creating a false association with plaintiffs, resulting in grave financial losses to them. Sanjeev Narula, J., restrained Defendants 1 to 8, and anybody acting on their behalf, from advertising, selling, offering for sale, and marketing any products, packaging, menu cards and advertising material, labels, stationery articles, website or any other documentation using, depicting and/or displaying the impugned marks “Domino”, “Domino’s”, “Dominon”, “Dominox”, “Dominoz”, “Domison”, “Domain’s” and/or any other identical or deceptively similar mark in any manner whatsoever, so as to cause confusion or deception leading to passing off of the said defendants’ products and services as those of plaintiffs, and/or amounting to infringement of plaintiffs’ “Domino’s” trade marks. Read more
‘AMUL’ has gained wide, comprehensive and nation-wide reputation; its protection transcends all classes having been declared a well-known mark: Delhi HC
In a rectification petition filed under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’) by petitioner against Respondent 1 seeking rectification of the Register of Trade Marks by removal of Respondent 1’s trade mark (‘the impugned mark’), Anish Dayal, J.*, opined that there was little doubt that trade mark ‘AMUL’ had gained a wide, expansive, comprehensive and nation-wide reputation and products of ‘AMUL’, which had gone far beyond milk and milk products were available not only in shops and retail stores, but also in shops which were operated or franchised by AMUL, selling ‘AMUL’ products exclusively. Therefore, the mark ‘AMUL’ had acquired huge, undiluted, enduring significance and was relatable to source of goods of petitioners, also its protection would transcend all classes having been declared a well-known mark. Accordingly, the Court allowed the rectification petition and removed the impugned mark from the Register. The Court also stated that these directions to be carried out within four weeks after the present judgment was pronounced. Read more
Delhi High Court restrains Ashirvad Pipes from using marks similar to Jaguar’s ‘ARTIZE’ and ‘TIAARA’ marks in relation to sanitaryware
C. Hari Shankar, J.*,restrained defendant, Ashirvad Pipes (P) Ltd., and all others acting on its behalf, pending disposal of the present suit, from using, in any manner whatsoever, the impugned marks, the word mark ARTISTRY, and the mark TIARA, and also any other similar device or word mark or logo which was confusingly or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s, Jaquar and Co. (P) Ltd.’s registered trade-marks, of the goods, in respect of which the marks were used by plaintiff or for any other allied or cognate goods or services. Read more
[Financial Scam] Delhi High Court restrains unauthorized use of mark ‘RAZORPAY’; directs blocking of Facebook/WhatsApp/Telegram Accounts
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant 1 was perpetrating fraud on the public by creating a false association with them, resulting in grave financial losses to the public. Sanjeev Narula, J., restrained Defendant 1, and all persons acting on their behalf, from using plaintiffs’ trade marks or logos, including, ‘RAZORPAY’, or and/or any deceptive variants thereof which were identical and/or similar to plaintiffs’ “Razor” trade marks in any manner, thereby amounting to infringement or passing off of plaintiffs’ trade-marks. Read more
‘HALDIRAM’- A “well-known mark”
Delhi High Court declares ‘HALDIRAM’ as “well-known mark” in respect of food items, restaurants, eateries
Plaintiff, Haldiram India (P) Ltd. filed the present suit seeking protection of its mark ‘HALDIRAM’, and a declaration that the said mark, along with its variations such as ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ was ‘well-known’ in terms of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’). Further, plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction, restraining defendants from selling products under the impugned mark ‘HALDIRAM’/‘HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA’ or any other marks that were deceptively similar to plaintiff’s mark ‘HALDIRAM’. Read more
