Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The Defendants have entirely imitated Plaintiff No. 1’s registered trademarks, replicating all aspects such as font of the letters, design of the logo, color scheme, size, style, and placement of letter and the taglines. Both the marks are also used for identical services.”

High Court Roundup March 2024
High Court Round UpLegal RoundUp

A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in March 2024

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court elucidated the treatment of subscription fees vis-à-vis royalties and technical services under both the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and the Income Tax Act and clarified the distinction between income from subscription fees and payments for intellectual property rights or technical consultancy services.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The differences showed that extraordinary effort has been put by defendant in identifying differences and the broad similarities are so obvious at the first look that the differences are nudged into oblivion.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Impugned artistic work is not an original artistic work and primarily consists of mark ‘BOSS’, which does not belong to Respondent 1 and even the colour scheme of petitioner is substantially imitated by Respondent 1, which will supplement the finding that the impugned registration is not an original work.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Failure to grant such injunction is bound to result in continued infringement of copyright. Accordingly, the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also justify grant of interim injunction as sought.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“It is further pointed out that, without filing any response to the present plaint, Defendant 2 is continuing to mislead the public into believing that no license is required to be obtained from the plaintiff before exploiting the recordings in which it has copyright.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Technology has posed a major challenge for entities like the Plaintiffs as there is a proliferation of many platforms including websites from where unauthorised, unlicensed and pirated content of the Plaintiffs can be downloaded, accessed and viewed by customers and viewers.

bombay high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Ordinarily, once a finding is rendered that no prima facie case is made out, no discussion is warranted on the aspects of grave and irreparable loss and balance of convenience.”

allahabad high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The dissolution of partnership is one aspect and its effect on carrying on business by making different arrangements to defeat rights of a registered trade mark owner, is altogether a different thing”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The present suit relates to the idea of a storytelling platform, there can be no monopoly over the running of such a platform. However, all such platforms that share stories about various individuals/subjects would be attaching/incorporating their own creative ways to communicate and disseminate the said stories, which constitute the expression. Such expression is protectable under Copyright law.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“While E-Commerce provide new platforms for small designers and businesses, the same ought not to be misused for the purposes of imitating and producing look alike products thereby violating any intellectual property rights.”

bombay high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Wynk claimed that Section 31D covers all kinds of dissemination that may be encompassed by the phrase “broadcast” or “communicating to the public”, but does not expressly say anything about the internet, does not prohibit or forbid internet-based services, radio-like or not.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The present case highlights the precarious position in which artists, film producers, companies who manage rights in music, and others are placed due to the execution of multiple agreements in respect of the same work.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“There can be no copyright claimed in the Scriptures. However, any adaptations of the said work including providing explanation, summary, meaning, exegesis/interpretation or creating any audio-visual works being transformative works, will be entitled to copyright protection.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Piracy of cinematograph films is one of the biggest causes for losses in the film industry. Thus, various legislative steps have been taken to curb piracy and recently, amendments have been carried out in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to deal with piracy in a much stricter manner.”

bombay high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court perused the assignment deed pertaining to the film ‘Amba’ and opined that ‘the said work’ indicates plaintiff’s failure in making out a prima facie case of only audio rights being assigned to the defendant.

screenplay for film nayak
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The screenplay of the film is entirely the work of Satyajit Ray. ‘Nayak’ was also entirely the directorial effort of Satyajit Ray. The plaintiff, RD Bansal is merely the producer of the film.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

In the instant case clips and stills from the film ‘Jawan’ were already available on the internet over various platforms, though no license to broadcast or transmit any part of the film has, to date, been granted by the plaintiff to any entity.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court observed that “Dichotomizing the claims and the accompanying specifications is, therefore, contrary to the most fundamental canons of patent law.”