Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In March 2025, Birkenstock discovered large-scale counterfeiting of its footwear originating from rural Agra, with products infiltrating Delhi markets like Karol Bagh and Tilak Nagar. Investigations confirmed defendants 2 to 4 were manufacturing and distributing counterfeit BIRKENSTOCK sandals.
The interaction of patent laws and ethics is an uncomfortable relationship and has always produced difficulties. In such circumstances, section 3(b) ought not to be interpreted to deal with all subjective concerns of morality, public order or health regardless of any scientific or technical evidence or any cogent reasoning.
In the last week of March 2025, the plaintiff came across the listing of defendants’ products on e-commerce platforms such as Meesho and TradeRaise for identical products i.e., for cleaners and disinfectants, which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “MAXKITEEN” marks.
Defendant 1 is unknown person/persons, who have fraudulently engaged with different business entities to commit fraud, impersonation and are misleading the general public into believing that they are acting on behalf of the plaintiff.
The defendants are websites that are making the plaintiff’s series/show available to the public without procuring any valid license or authorization from the plaintiff. These defendants’ websites unlawfully provide access to infringing content free of charge, without requiring users to register. The availability of such content is monetized through advertisements displayed on these platforms.
In April 2022, while conducting a market survey, the plaintiff came across the defendant’s listing on the online trade directory of www.tradeindia.com selling butyl tubes of two-wheeler and four-wheeler vehicles under the infringing marks.
The unauthorized use of the “LIV” element in a manner that does not materially differentiate the defendants’ mark from the plaintiffs’ well-established “Liv.52” mark amounts to a violation of the plaintiffs’ statutory rights.
The plaintiff uses the mark ‘JANGEER’, whereas the mark of the defendant includes an ‘I’ in place of ‘EE’ and ‘D’ in place of ‘R’ i.e., ‘JANGID’. Apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant, the manner and style of writing is also completely different. The added features in the defendant’s mark make it quite distinct from the plaintiff’s mark.
“By selling counterfeit medical products, the defendants have not only inflicted substantial financial loss upon the plaintiff but have also misled the consumers who purchased these products under the false belief that they were genuine. Given the gravity of the infringement and the extent of harm caused, compensatory damages alone would be inadequate to compensate the plaintiff.”
The plaintiff alleged that Jamp Pharma breached the agreement by sharing the product dossiers with the defendants i.e., Indian pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the said products for Jamp Pharma. Since these defendants were not parties to the original agreements, the plaintiff contended that their use of the product dossiers constituted copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets.
It is the case of the petitioner that they have been using the mark “JACK DANIEL’S” since 1895 in respect of alcoholic beverages. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of various trademarks including “JACK DANIEL’S” and other formative parts.
Mankind Pharma used the mark “MANKIND” since 1986 and holds 78 separate trademark registrations covering a variety of pharmaceutical products. The concern arose when Novakind adopted the name “NOVAKIND” for its pharmaceutical products.
The Court has upheld a restraint against Canada’s Jamp Pharma and associated third parties, preventing them from infringing upon Jubilant Generics Limited’s intellectual property rights and unauthorized use of its confidential product dossier reinforcing the importance of respecting cross-border confidentiality agreements in pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution.
Dream 11 is a fantasy sport league is an online multi-player game where participants draft virtual teams of real players of a professional sport. These virtual drafted teams get points based on the performance of the players in actual games.
The anonymous websites (Defendants 1-60) have been systematically infringing on the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff through unauthorized content distribution. Operating under hidden or forged identities, these sites flagrantly disregard copyright laws, leveraging the internet’s anonymity to evade accountability.
The present suit seeks a permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition arising from the sale of footwear featuring marks that are nearly identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established N Device and 550 marks.
Yahoo Inc.’s investigation revealed that the defendant was producing a mouth freshener under the name “YAAHOO! Mouth Freshener.” that closely resembled the established trademark “YAHOO!”, leading to allegations of trademark infringement and passing off.
The impugned mark, “DREAM11”, is clearly used as the domain name of the defendant’s website and its logo. The description of the defendant’s platform as contained on its website reveals that its services are identical to those of Sporta Technologies.
The legal proceedings revolve around the defendants’ alleged unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s sound recordings at their hotels for commercial events, parties, and day-to-day business activities.
Novex Communications Private Limited sued the operators of Social- Saket and Social- Hauz Khas for unauthorized use of copyrighted sound recordings, seeking to introduce video evidence of these infringements.