Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The plaintiff’s main product line includes an ointment meant for relief of boils and abrasions famously known as ‘SU-MAG’ and also manufactures ‘MAG-MAG’, ‘CREMOBAR’, ‘COFEX’, ‘GLYCERIN’, ‘SUPPOSITORY’ as well as other ayurvedic products namely ‘Livzon Syrup and Capsule’ and ‘Imminex Syrup and Capsule’.
Delhi High Court directed Mankind Pharma Limited to run a modified advertisement i.e., original advertisement with the disclaimer that DMF is not mandated under Indian law and is not a quality norm for products in India.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 83
The marks have to be compared as a whole mark, thus compared, there is no phonetic similarity between NILKAMAL and NILKRANTI.
The suit was filed against the marks FERTISUN used per se as well as with the suffixes F and L as FERTISUN-F and FERTISUN-L and the corporate name of the defendant ‘LaurenSun Remedies Pvt Ltd’.
As per a status report dated 20-11-2023, the use of the mark ‘AAJ TAK’ has been disabled on all channels, and the domain names have been either suspended, locked or blocked.
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.
While freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct, the reputation of a person earned over several decades, cannot be sacrificed at the altar of such freedom, when the impugned publication, ex-facie, contains unsubstantiated allegations and defamatory imputations, regardless of the truth.
The procurement of LNG may become onerous as had happened in August and December 2022 but no irreparable loss and injury would result to the ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel.
“The trade marks POLO/RALPH LAUREN/POLO PLAYER DEVICE are liable to be recognized as ‘well-known’ marks as defined under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”
“Proceedings under Section 24 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, are summary in nature while an injunction suit filed by the respondent is a regular suit.”
“That defendants have chosen to imitate the manner in which plaintiff prints its logo is itself testimony to the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff, in the perception of defendant itself.”
“In a case such as this, if injunction is not granted ex parte, it would result in the defendant continuing to defraud the public at the expense of the plaintiff.”
“There is every likelihood of defendant’s cloud kitchen services being perceived as another extension of plaintiff’s services owing to the nature of the ‘SOCIAL’ series of marks used by plaintiff.”
“Considering that the plaintiff operates in the pharmaceutical and medicinal sector and is also registered for the ‘GSK’ mark, the use of an identical mark, especially in an identical colour combination, is clearly dishonest and mala fide.”
The unfilled cans which have been seized, shall be released in favour of the Defendants, which were given to them on a superdari basis, in the presence of a representative of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s representative may accordingly visit the Defendants’ premises on 01-11-2023 at 11:00 a.m.
The comparison of the features of the prior existing third party apps with Plaintiffs’ mobile app, fortifies the stand of the Defendants that the distinguishing features are not enough for the Plaintiffs to cross the threshold of idea expression dichotomy to claim originality and consequently protection in the gaming app and copyright infringement.
The certificates for the current students who are currently undergoing Class 10 and Class 12 as also other children, for the academic year 2023-2024, shall be issued under the existing name of the defendants.
This is a case where the Intellectual Property Office of Japan has found itself at the receiving end of infringement and imitation by unscrupulous Defendants. The defendants’ use of the identical mark and logo would be violative of the Plaintiff’s goodwill and brand equity.
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.