Topical Updates: To IP & Beyond
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
SAREGAMA INDIA LTD. VS. EMAMI LTD.
Saregama Ltd. filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendant from using the musical and literary works of the song “Udi Jab Jab Zulfein” from the movie “Naya Daur” for the advertisement of its product, Emami Kesh King Anti Hairfall Shampoo, without obtaining a license. The Defendant raised a challenge to the Plaintiff’s copyright in the song as having expired 60 years after the release of the movie i.e., 15.08.1957.
The Court, as an interim measure, directed the Defendant to deposit a sum of INR 10 lakh and directed the Plaintiff to file its documents outlining licence prices for comparable licences, in a sealed cover.
DELHI HIGH COURT
DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED V. REBANTA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER
In this suit for infringement of Dr. Reddy Labs.’(DRL) trademark ‘REBAHEAL’, the Court granted an interim relief restraining the Defendant from using the identical mark for manufacturing, marketing and selling medicinal products for a different ailment and with a different composition. It was observed that the rival marks are visually and phonetically identical which is likely to cause confusion and deception amongst the general public, doctors, and chemists. Further, the Court noted that since the rival products are meant for treatment of different ailments but target the same classes of consumers, any resultant confusion can cause serious injury to public health.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC V. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS
Microsoft’s appeal against the Controller’s order rejecting its Patent application for lack of inventive step and being a computer program per se (under S. 2(1)(ja) and 3(k) of the Patent’s Act, resp.), allowed. Held:
- 3(k) qualified with the phrase “per se”, does not preclude all inventions based on computer programs from patentability. The claimed invention, resulting in technical advancement, is not a computer program per se.
- ‘Enablement’ not relevant under S.3(k).
- Cited prior arts not analogous – the differences between them and the claimed invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
- Definition of ‘Computer Programme’ under Copyright Act applicable to Patents Act.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD.
V. META PLATFORMS INC. & ORS.
In a case involving impersonation and trademark infringement, the Court passed an ad-interim injunction directing social media platforms, including Meta and WhatsApp, to remove AI-generated videos of the MD and CEO of National Stock Exchange (NSE) recommending investors to join a WhatsApp group for stock tips. The NSE urged the due diligence obligations of social media intermediaries under the IT Act and Rules 3(1)(b) and 3(2), and pressed for them to act within 10 hours in urgent cases. The John Doe defendants were restrained from publishing false advertisements on the said platforms, which were further directed to disclose their details.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Court, while granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using the Plaintiff’s well-known mark ‘ADIDAS’, held that this was a clear case of infringement given the identity in the marks, allied nature of the Defendants’ goods with that of the Plaintiff’s, and a significant overlap in trade channels. The Court also awarded the Plaintiff nominal damages of INR 3,00,000 and costs of litigation amounting to INR 11,22,060.
Significant Judgments
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bench comprising J. BV Nagarathna and J. Sanjay Karol delivered a split verdict on commercial sale of Genetically Modified Mustard in India. The Court was adjudicating whether the approval granted by GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee) and MoEFCC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) for commercial release of GM mustard is valid and in public interest.
With a split decision, Justice Nagarathna quashed the approval granted by the GEAC and MoEFCC whereas Justice Karol upheld it. While the matter is to be placed before Chief Justice of India for review by a larger bench, the DB has directed for a formation of a Committee to frame National Policy on GM crops within four months, thorough testing of genetically modified (GM) crops, and an assessment of the functioning of the GEAC.
The Court also decided that GEAC’s decisions on GMOs are open to judicial review and Importation of GM foods must comply with FSSAI Act labeling requirements.
2. i. The respondent-Union of India is directed to evolve a National Policy with regard to GM crops in the realm of research, cultivation, trade and commerce in the country…
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
In an appeal against an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the Apex Court dealt with the issue of non-filing of written statement and held that if a party’s right to file the same is forfeited, it cannot indirectly introduce its case through evidence or written submissions. The order of the NCDRC was found erroneous as it relied on new facts and contentions raised by the Respondent in its written submissions, while its right to file a written statement had been held forfeited by the Supreme Court vide a separate order. The Court observed that even though failure / forfeiture to file a written statement does not disentitle a party from participating in further proceedings, the same is confined to cross-examination of the witnesses of the opposite side. Held, appeal allowed in part, i.e., modifying the portion of NCDRC’s order to the extent that relied on the Respondent’s written submissions.
18…a party could not make out a case on the basis of evidence for which he/she has laid no foundation in the pleadings.
ARIJIT SINGH v. CODIBLE VENTURES LLP AND ORS.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Renowned singer Mr. Arijit Singh (“Plaintiff”) sought protection of his personality rights viz. his name, voice, signatures, photograph, image, caricature, likeness, persona & other attributes of his personality against unauthorized/ unlicensed commercial exploitation, misuse etc. along with protection of moral rights in his performances under S. 38B of the Copyright Act, which were being violated on various AI platforms.
While granting an ad interim dynamic injunction restraining the Defendants from using the singer’s personality rights, the Hon’ble Court observed that this form of technological exploitation not only infringes upon the individual’s right to control and protect their own likeness and voice, but also undermines their ability to prevent commercial and deceptive uses of their identity.
21…even though such freedom allows for critique and commentary, it does not grant the license to exploit a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to protect the Plaintiff against any wrongful exploitation of his personality rights and right to publicity.
Meet the Picklers: Sneha Jain, Savni D. Endlaw, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari, Kuber Mahajan, Disha Sharma, Srishti Dhoundiyal and Surabhi Pande.
