Home / LawPickle / Bulletin 18 | Oct 2024

Bulletin 18 | Oct 2024

Topical Updates: To IP & Beyond

Snapshots

The Delhi High Court granted an injunction against T-Series, restraining the film production company  from using the titles “Tu Hi Aashiqui,” “Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai,” and “Aashiqui” for an upcoming film.

The court held that the franchise / title “Aashiqui,” jointly owned by the parties, possesses distinctiveness due to its association with the established film series that includes successful releases in 1990 and 2013.

Refuting the Defendant’s stand that they had no intention to produce another instalment of the franchise, the Court highlighted the necessity of protecting titles of expressive works that are part of a recognized series, given their potential to acquire significant recognition and distinctiveness over time.

DELHI HIGH COURT

GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE MILK V. TERRE PRIMITIVE & ORS.

In a recent trademark infringement case, the Court re-iterated “Amul”’s status as a well-known trademark, and restrained the Defendants’ use of the mark/name i.e. Amuleti. The Defendants used this mark to sell chocolates and adopted a similar font to closely resemble the Plaintiffs’ well-known trademark. Highlighting the immense goodwill of “Amul”, its phenomenal sales and its trans-border reputation, the Court passed an exparte ad interim injunction restraining the use of Amuleti or any other deceptively similar mark.

The Court held that the Defendant’s video contained false and disparaging statements about the Plaintiff’s product ‘COMPLAN,’ lacking credible evidence or medical expertise. The court highlighted the duty of social media influencers to be careful and prudent when discussing health topics. It noted that freedom of speech does not allow influencers to openly malign the Plaintiff’s government-recognized product. Held, that the Defendant’s actions amounted to disparagement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark, violating Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court passed an order prohibiting the Defendant from making available the impugned video or making further disparaging statements about the plaintiff’s products.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

APPARIO RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED VS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.

The present petition was filed by Appario Retail challenging the investigation report submitted by the Director General (DG), basis which Appario was arrayed as an opposite party in a proceeding before the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Holding that the inclusion / treatment of a third party as the opposite party without prior permission of the CCI is violative of Section 24 as well as Sections 16(1) and 26(1), read in conjunction with Section 41 of the Competition Act, 2002, the Court directed interim stay on the operation of the DG’s report and the CCI’s order.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

AMAZON SELLER SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED V. M/S. INDUSVIVA HEALTHSCIENCES PVT. LTD.

The Court granted an interim stay on all further proceedings in a suit filed against Amazon by a direct selling entity, premised on the alleged infraction of the Model Framework for Guidelines on Direct Selling, 2016 (“DSG 2016”). This order was passed in a Revision Petition against an order dismissing Amazon’s rejection of Plaint application, in light of the DSG 2016 having been withdrawn by a Gazette notification in 2022, and replaced by the Direct Selling Rules under the Consumer Protection Act.

Significant Judgments

KUNAL KAMRA v. UNION OF INDIA

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

The Court addressed a batch of writ petitions challenging an amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 which empowers the Central Government to establish Fact Check Units (FCU) to identify the ‘fake and misleading’ information about its business on social media platforms.

Arguments made against the Amendment:

  • The amendment was alleged to violate Article 14 of the Constitution on grounds of being class legislation, as it selectively targeted only the Central Government’s business without a discernible rationale.
  • Concerns were raised regarding the violation of principles of natural justice, as the Central Government was to both establish the FCUs and adjudicate cases involving them.

Following a split verdict by the Division bench, the matter was referred to the ‘tie breaker’ third single-judge, who struck down the amended rule as it was found to be violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(a), Article19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution. Further held, the terms ‘fake or false or misleading’ are  vague and overbroad, and may have a chilling effect on social media intermediaries and right to free speech.

55. Absence of sufficient safeguards against the abuse of the Rules that tend to interfere with the aforesaid fundamental rights are shown to be absent..

DELHI HIGH COURT

Allowing the appeal against an order of the Controller of Patents which refused the patent application for ‘Absorbable Iron-Based Alloy Implantable Medical Device’ with zinc-containing protector, the Court observed that:

  • While assessing novelty and inventive step, the Controller failed to identify the Person Skilled in the Art (PSITA) and as well as to provide rationale as to how the cited prior art can provide an identifiable roadmap for a PSITA to arrive at the claimed invention.
  • The five-step test for inventive step, as identified in Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla, was not applied correctly.
  • There was a violation of principle of natural justice as envisaged in Manohar v. State of Maharasthra, given that the impugned order lacked scientific reasoning.

Held, the impugned order was set aside and remanded back to the Controller for limited consideration of inventive step.

16…it would be judicious for this Court to conclude that the impugned order actually lacks a proper methodology and insufficient scientific reasoning as it gives a scattered analysis.

DELHI HIGH COURT

An ex-parte, ad interim injunction order was granted in a copyright infringement suit, restraining Rogue Apps (MovieBlast, Movies Hub and Nova TV) from disseminating, in any manner, content in which the Plaintiff has copyright. The Court directed domain name registrars to block the websites associated with the Rogue Apps, as well as disclose complete details of the registrants of the same. Internet service providers and government authorities were further directed to issue requisite notifications for the blocking of such domains / websites.

This dynamic injunction order further permitted the Plaintiff to notify the Court, by the means of affidavit(s), of any additional websites / User Interfaces associated with the Rogue Apps and discovered by the Plaintiff to be infringing its exclusive rights, so as to be applicable on the said additional websites / UIs as well.

Meet the Picklers: Sneha Jain, Savni D. Endlaw, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari, Kuber Mahajan, Disha Sharma, Srishti Dhoundiyal and Surabhi Pande.

FOR REGULAR UPDATES FOLLOW LAWPICKLE AT: