Topical Updates: To IP & Beyond
Snapshots
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLANT TRIBUNAL
STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. V. THAMIZHAGA CA BLE TV COMMUNICATION LTD.
In a petition filed before the TDSAT, it was alleged that the Respondent arbitrarily migrated subscribers from existing bouquet of channels which included Star Channels, to a new bouquet created by the Respondent excluding all such channels of Star India. This migration was done without any request from the subscribers and was held to be prima facie violative of Regulations 5(1) and 7 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Addressable Systems), Regulations 2018. An ex-parte ad-interim order was passed inter alia restraining the Respondent from migrating subscribers without written request.
While partly rejecting an application filed by the Plaintiff seeking to bring on record additional documents in a commercial suit, the Court emphasized the requirement for strict adherence to the timelines laid down in the Commercial Court Act, 2015. Inability to file the documents existing at the time of filing of the suit, due to oversight and error committed by the earlier counsel, cannot be a ground to bring on record the additional documents.
Held, additional documents cannot be taken on record in commercial proceedings if there is lack of reasonable cause and negligence in non-filing of documents, at an earlier stage.
DELHI HIGH COURT
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR. V. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED
An application seeking vacation of injunction order passed against Zydus in a suit for patent infringement, was allowed on the ground that the Plaintiff (Roche) had failed to conduct claim mapping. The ad interim injunction was vacated stating that an injunction based merely on a registered patent could not be the intention of the legislature. Without adequate evidence of claim mapping, it was concluded that patent infringement cannot be established based on bio similarity.
However, the Single Judge also passed a separate order extending the injunction for two weeks so that Roche may appeal the vacation order. This order was subsequently set aside by the Division Bench in an appeal filed by Zydus as being unjustified following the dismissal of the interim relief on merits.
DELHI HIGH COURT
WIPRO ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD V. HIMALAYA WELLENESS COMPANY & ORS.
The Division Bench upheld an interim injunction order whereby Wipro was restrained from using “EVECARE” for female reproductive health products. The Court emphasized that classification of goods and services under the NICE classification is not a decisive factor for determining similarity. Held, in addition to being allied/cognate products serving similar demographics, these “hush products” were less likely to inspire consumers to inquire about their origin, hence increasing the risk of confusion.
DELHI HIGH COURT
STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. V. TAJKIR MOHAMMAD TANVIR (KING’S PRO+)
An ex-parte, ad interim injunction was issued in a copyright infringement case, restraining the Rogue App (KING’S PRO+), its owner, and associated websites / User Interfaces (UI) from disseminating Plaintiff’s copyrighted content. The Court directed Domain Registrars to block these websites and disclose registrant details. Internet Service Providers and government authorities were directed to issue notifications for such domain/website blocking, while PayPal was directed to freeze the Defendant’s account. The Plaintiff was further permitted to file affidavits identifying additional associated websites/UIs for future action.
Significant Judgments
DELHI HIGH COURT
In this distinctive trade mark infringement suit, the Plaintiff company sought to restrain the Defendants (one of which was the erstwhile Chairman & Managing Director of the Plaintiff company) from infringing upon its trademark ‘KHATEMA’, registered in relation to eco-friendly papers. It was argued that the former Chairman of the Plaintiff company unauthorizedly applied for the registration of the ‘KHATEMA’ trade mark(s) in his own name and submitted fraudulent No Objection Certificates on behalf of the Plaintiff company to support the said applications before the Trade Mark Registry.
It was further argued that the aforesaid impugned activities of the Defendants were carried out during the pendency of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Plaintiff company with a view to usurp the Plaintiff company’s asset and goodwill. The Court noted the Plaintiff’s submissions that Defendant No.1’s powers as a Director were suspended by the NCLT under Section 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and that since the Plaintiff company was under CIRP, Section 14(b) of the said Act was applicable prohibiting transfer, alienation or disposal of any asset or legal right of Plaintiff.
Observing that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction, restraining the Defendants from adopting and using any mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s ‘KHATEMA’ trademark.
DELHI HIGH COURT
The Plaintiff, a Telugu producer, director and actor filed a suit seeking injunctive relief against various YouTube channels and content creators for unauthorized use of his name, image, voice, and other elements of his persona, claiming defamation, infringement of copyright, misappropriation of personality/publicity rights. The Plaintiff alleged that some of the Defendants were making use of artificial intelligence and other technology to morph/superimpose the face of the Plaintiff and create images and/or audio-video clips which were defamatory in nature.
The Court passed an ex-parte ad interim order in favour of the Plaintiff injuncting the Defendants from creating/ publishing communicating to the public/ disseminating any content, which defames the Plaintiff.
42. The technological tools that are now freely available make it possible for any illegal and unauthorised user to use, produce or imitate any celebrity’s persona, by using any tools including Artificial Intelligence. The celebrity enjoys the right of privacy, and does not wish that his or her image, voice, likeness is portrayed in a dark or grim manner, as portrayed on the porn websites…
DELHI HIGH COURT
In a suit filed by PhonePe against Defendant’s unauthorised use of PHONEPE / 
/ 
/ 
marks in relation to packaged snacks/chips, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the Plaintiff’s registered marks in relation to any goods or services whatsoever, resulting in infringement/ passing off and acts of unfair competition and dilution of Plaintiff’s PhonePe marks and copyright in its marks.
The Defendants, in this case, had not only prominently adopted the Plaintiff’s well-known PhonePe marks but also an overall distinctive purple colour packaging in relation to the Impugned Products and had further attempted to portray association/collaboration with the Plaintiff through use of a ‘mobile phone’ device and offering of purported rewards and gifts.
Meet the Picklers: Sneha Jain, Savni D. Endlaw, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari, Disha Sharma, Surabhi Pande and Srishti Dhoundiyal.
