Delhi High Court cancels trade mark ‘LI’L MONSTER’ to protect the Intellectual Property Rights of Monster Energy Co.
The trade mark ‘MONSTER’ had been adopted by Monster Energy Co. in 2002 in the United States of America.
IPR
Intellectual Property Rights | A quick view of top Intellectual Property cases from July and August 2024
A quick recap of top Intellectual Property cases on sale of counterfeit copies of EBC’s books, Nizam’s trade mark, Mankind v. Mercykind, Adidas, L’Oréal, Electronica, and more.
CASES REPORTED IN HCC | Case Laws on Specific Performance of Contract; E-Way Bill; Condonation of Delay; Adverse Possession; IPR; and more
An update on new additions of case laws to SCC’s High Court Cases volume.
Amazon, Flipkart & Snapdeal directed to stop selling counterfeit copies of EBC’s books; Delhi HC restrains parties from printing & selling counterfeit copies of EBC books
The Court directed the Commissioners to conduct a search at the book houses and seize the infringing products bearing EBC’s registered trade marks or containing contents identical or deceptively similar to EBC’s books, books without hologram, packaging, labels, printing material and other material that reflect infringement of copyright and trade mark.
Delhi High Court directs ‘Andaaz-E-Nizaam’ restaurant to change name in Trade Mark infringement plea by ‘Nizam’s
Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for taking a registered trade mark off the Register on account of non-use of the trade mark.
‘Associate Managers appointed u/S. 3(2) of Trade Marks Act are not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders’; Calcutta HC
The Registrar dealing with an application under the Trade Marks Act is a quasi-judicial and delegation of power under Section 3(2) is an administrative power and as such the Associate Managers are not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders.
Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Adidas AG in suit filed for infringement of ‘ADIDAS’ trade mark
It was said that when a mark as distinctive and well-known as “Adidas” is copied, it can dilute the mark’s distinctiveness and harm the brand’s reputation, irrespective of the differences in the product categories.
Delhi High Court grants interim injunction against shops from unauthorised use of brand name ‘Peter England’ outside their shops
The brand ‘Peter England’ was introduced in 1997 and later acquired by Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. in 2000.
Delhi High Court grants interim injunction to Dr. Reddy’s in suit filed to restrain violation of trade mark “REBAHEAL”
Since the rival trade marks were visually and phonetically identical, it would cause confusion and deception amongst the general public, doctors, and chemists.
Delhi High Court directs Emami Ltd. to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs for infringing Saregama India’s copyright on song ‘Udi Jab Jab Zulfein’
The rights of the impugned song ‘Udi Jab Jab Zulfein’ from the film ‘Naya Daur’ had been assigned to Saregama India Ltd. by BR Films, the original producer of the film.
Delhi High Court directs formation of Code of Conduct to regulate Patent and Trade Mark agents; sets aside abandonment order of patent application
Apart from the formation of Code of Conduct for Patent and Trade Mark agents, the Delhi High Court also found a requirement to put in guidelines for solicitation and advertising.
‘Registration does not confer immunity from challenges’; Delhi High Court grants interim injunction to prevent usage of trade mark ‘HUALI’
The Delhi High Court said that while trade mark registration offers statutory benefits, it does not obliterate prior common law rights established through actual use and accrued goodwill in the market.
Bombay HC discontinues ex-parte injunction granted to ATYATI against alleged device mark infringement by COGNIZANT
The Court opined that had the plaintiff disclosed the facts, about the knowledge of the date of usage of the logo, then the ad interim relief without notice would not have been granted to the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the Court opined that the plaintiff had suppressed the material facts.
Refusal to register “Trump too small” trademark under Lanham Act’s ‘Names Clause’ does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS
In 2016, after watching a Presidential primary debate exchange between then-candidate Donald Trump and Senator Marco Rubio, the respondent sought to federally register the trademark “Trump too small” to use on shirts and hats.
Supreme Court dismisses MakeMyTrip’s plea against Google in Keyword trade mark infringement case
“A risk of trade mark infringement occurs when a registered trade mark is used as a keyword by a third party to link its website to promote its goods and services, which creates confusion in the minds of the consumers about the source of the product.”
“Inventor within the meaning of Patents Act, 1977 must be a natural person”; UK SC upholds Comptroller’s refusal to regard DABUS the AI Machine as ‘inventor’
The Court unanimously stated that the Comptroller was right in determining that the appellant was not entitled to apply for the patents simply by his ownership of DABUS.
Situation like a theft being committed in a police station; Delhi High Court grants injunction against Indian companies to use logo similar to Japan Patent Office
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.
Delhi High Court injuncts Khesari Lal Yadav from selling any new song to third party till 30-09-2025 in view of an agreement with Global Music Junction
The agreement between the parties is not a contract between an employee-employer or a manager-sportsperson contract, rather they are commercial contracts entered into between parties with equal bargaining power and for mutual commercial benefit. Thus, the agreements between the parties are neither ‘excessively one sided’ nor they impose a ‘bondage’.
Delhi High Court denies injunction to Times Group for its claim of ‘prior use’ of logo “NOW”, “E NOW” “E-NEWS NOW”
The Court opined that whether a mark is common to trade or not is a question of fact. Similarly, a mark may be a trademark in some jurisdictions and ‘publici juris’ in others, but a mark that may be common to trade at one time may become distinctive over a period, or vice versa.
[Blinkit v. Blinkhit Trademark Infringement] | Karnataka HC sets aside temporary restraining injunction against Blinkit
The Court noted that the Trial Court made an error in allowing Blinkhit’s application for temporary injunction, without properly appreciating the available materials on record vis-à-vis the trademark’s usage and nature of the business carried out by the parties.