
Topical Updates: To IP & Beyond
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Plaintiff filed a suit for defamation seeking an ex-parte injunction against political figures who claimed he used abusive language on air, and take-down of such defamatory posts as well as an allegedly edited / tampered video of the Plaintiff on X and YouTube. The Court observed that although the threshold of public criticism and defamatory posts on intermediary platforms is higher, the dignity and honour of an individual must be protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, professional reputation of an individual is sensitive and an injury to the same is considered sufficiently serious. Holding the balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff, the Court directed immediate takedown of the impugned posts and video from the platforms.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
NOVARTIS AG & ANR. V. NOVARISH HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED
The Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant’s use of the mark NOVARISH’ as being almost identical and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ ‘NOVARTIS’ mark. It was observed that the Defendant has merely replaced the letters ‘TIS’ in the Plaintiff’s priorly adopted and used registered trade mark ‘NOVARTIS’, with the letters ‘ISH’ so as to arrive at the impugned mark. The Court was of the view that such a minor change does not make the rival marks dissimilar or lend any distinctiveness to the Defendants’ mark as the same would cause confusion in the minds of the consumers. Held, Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. V. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS.
In this appeal filed by IIT Madras under S. 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, the High Court upheld the order of the Controller of Patents refusing registration of ‘Method of Doping Potassium’. While the Controller’s rejection based on S. 3(a) (frivolous invention) and lack of industrial applicability under S. 2(1)(j) was held untenable, the Court concluded that since the claimed invention employs known processes which do not result in a new product, it is excluded from patentability under S. 3(d) of the Act. Further, in the absence of any experimental data to establish economic significance, the claimed invention was held to lack inventive step under S. 2(1)(ja).
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD. V. ASTRAL LTD.
In a recent design and copyright infringement case, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from selling its ‘Solvobond’ cement products in containers identical/similar to the plaintiff’s registered M-SEAL PV SEAL containers. The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s container design is both distinctive and visually appealing when considered as a whole, and noted that the same cannot be ‘mosaiced’ for the test of ‘appeal to the eye’. Further, it was held that the Plaintiff’s design is validly registered and not a trade variant of existing/known designs.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. V. GLECK PHARMA (OPC) PVT. LTD.
In a suit filed to protect the Plaintiff’s ‘ZITA-MET’ mark registered in relation to an anti-diabetic drug, the Court applied the principle of deceptive similarity laid down by Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care case, and restrained the defendant from using the mark ‘XIGAMET’ in class 5. The Court observed that a stricter approach has to be adopted while judging the possibility of confusion of one medicinal product with another, since such confusion may have disastrous effects on health, and, in some cases, on life itself.
Significant Judgments
BHARAT PRANJIVANDAS MANDALIA & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
A writ petition was filed by followers of the Pustimargi sect, seeking a direction from the Court to block the release of the movie ‘Maharaj’ which was slated to be released on Netflix, and to set aside the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the same. An ad-interim relief staying the release of the movie was initially granted by the Court based on the the Petitioners’ claim that the release of the movie is likely to incite hatred and violence against the Pustimargi sect. Subsequently, a vacation application was filed by the respondents, including Netflix, whereby the Court lifted the stay on the OTT release of the movie, and observed that:
- The rights of an artist cannot be subjected to the popular notions of acceptability as doing so would render the constitutional guarantee of artistic freedom illusory.
- The movie, although slated for OTT release, had been reviewed and certified by the CBFC, a statutory expert body. The court also viewed the movie and found nothing objectionable that would harm the religious feelings of the Petitioner or any sect.
- A book on the same subject has been publicly available since 2013 without any reported adverse incidents. As such, the Petitioner’s argument that the release of the movie would cause communal disharmony, was rejected.
WEST BENGAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. GTZ (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
In a suit for infringement of ‘product by process’ patents for Ferric Carboxy Maltose, the Calcutta High Court denied an interim injunction to the Petitioner while pointing out the lack of novelty in the suit patents, i.e., the suit patents covered known compounds, undermining the Petitioner’s claim of exclusive rights under Sections 48(a) and (b) of the Patents Act. The Court held that for ‘process patent’ infringement claims, an ex-parte injunction should be granted only if an independent expert shows the identity of the processes used by the Petitioner and Respondent.
The Court found that the Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case and also noted that the Petitioner’s patent was for a process, not a product, limiting their rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
37… the petitioner has not produced any materials on record of any scientist or any technical expert who tested the petitioner and the defendant product and arrived at a finding to the identity of the process used.
DELHI HIGH COURT
An ad-interim injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from launching its webseries “Yakshini” on Disney+Hotstar, was denied to the Plaintiff who claimed it to be an unauthorized adaptation of the Plaintiff’s audio series. Applying the test in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (there “can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts”), the Court held that the Plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case, emphasizing that similarities in mythological characters do not amount to copyright infringement. Further, the Court found no substantial evidence of imitation of the plaintiff’s work. Balance of convenience was also held in favour of the defendant since the injunction was sought a few hours prior to the release of the web-series.
“33… The similarity of name cannot be the sole criteria, especially because it is a mythological character on which admittedly various works, movies and books are already available. Prima facie, there is nothing to reflect that there is copyright violation of expression of idea…”
Meet the Picklers: Sneha Jain, Savni D. Endlaw, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari, Kuber Mahajan, Disha Sharma and Srishti Dhoundiyal.
