When ‘Privacy’ met ‘Copyright’: Telegram ordered to Disclose Source
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court remarked that just because Telegram’s servers are not located in India doesn’t mean that Indian courts cannot deal with copyright disputes. Accordingly, the Court ordered Telegram to disclose details of creators and operators of certain Telegram channels who were infringing copyright laws. This information includes phone numbers, IP addresses, and email addresses in a “sealed cover” within a period of two weeks. (Read here)
Pre-litigation mediation is not compulsory in Intellectual Property suits seeking urgent interim relief notes Delhi High Court
In a suit seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation, in accordance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from passing off of trademark, infringement of copyright, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages, and other reliefs, Justice Pratibha M. Singh noted that the requirement for the same under Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act stands satisfied when one party denies offer of amicable settlement of other party. The Court noted that ‘”A perusal of the correspondence, extracted hereinabove, leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the Defendants were in no way interested in an amicable resolution of the dispute. Instead, the hand of mediation which was lent by the Plaintiff was met with a tight slap. The Defendant’s conduct clearly is not in the spirit of any amicable resolution – let alone mediation. Hence, the requirement of Section 12A of the CCA duly stands satisfied on both counts”, the Court stated. (Read here)
Trademark ‘Amul’ gets protection even against non-competing goods, and services held in Calcutta High Court.
In the case of Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs Maa Tara Trading Co, the Plaintiffs alleged infringement of trademark and passing off of its mark AMUL and highlighted that on several occasions consumers have been duped by defendants. Accordingly, the Court noted that “ . . . [T]his Court is of the view that the defendants have tried to dupe the general public by using of an identical mark “AMUL” in respect of candles in violation of statutory rights as well as the common law rights of the plaintiffs. Such usage would inevitably lead to loss of revenue as also that of goodwill. Accordingly, the defendants have indulged into the offence of passing off. The defendants have infringed the registered trademark of the plaintiff as well as committed the torts of passing off”
‘Dominick Pizza’ can confuse people into “Domino’s Pizza”
Recently, Domino’s sought the protection of its mark ‘Domino’s Pizza’, its device mark, and logo as well as the marks’ Cheese Burst’ and ‘Pasta Italiano’ against “Dominick Pizza” from advertising, selling or marketing any product or any documentation using or displaying the impugned marks’ Dominick Pizza’, ‘Cheese Burst’ and ‘Pasta Italiano’. Also, the Delhi HC ordered the pizzeria to suspend its domain names, i.e., dominickpizza.com and dominickpizzas.com. (See here)
Sun Pharma’s trademark infringement case against Hetero’s breast cancer drug is dismissed by the Delhi High Court
In (appeal) case by Sun Pharma, the Delhi High Court observed that “Sun, in the present case, cannot be allowed to monopolize the INN ‘Letrozole’. The mark, ‘Letroz’, is not similar to the trademark ‘Letero’ merely because both the parties have adopted the initial letters (Sun adopted the first six and Hetero adopted the first three) of the INN ‘Letrozole’”. For unversed, as per the WHO – International Nonproprietary Names (INN) facilitate the identification of pharmaceutical substances or active pharmaceutical ingredients. Each INN is a unique name that is globally recognized and is public property. A nonproprietary name is also known as a generic name. (see here)
Delhi High Court allowed the entry of Faraaz into the London Film Festival
Faraaz – a movie based on the 2016 terrorist attack at Holey Artisan, Dhaka, Bangladesh was embroiled in a legal battle (Ruba Ahmed & Anr. V. Hansal Mehta & Ors.) with a family that had lost their daughters in the attack. In a recent order, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court has allowed the filing of the Movie for screening in the London Film Festival subject to the condition that the film shall not be screened either in India or abroad till disposal of the application or without prior permission of Court.
For the uninitiated readers, as per the Wikipedia page – “The BFI London Film Festival is an annual film festival founded in 1957 and held in the United Kingdom, running for two weeks in October with co-operation from the British Film Institute. It screens more than 300 films, documentaries and shorts from approximately 50 countries.” (see here)
Piracy needs to be dealt with heavy hand says the Delhi High Court in a case involving “Brahmastra Part One: Shiva” – The Delhi High Court recently restrained 18 rogue websites from streaming or hosting the upcoming Bollywood movie “Brahmastra Part One: Shiva” and granted ex parte ad interim relief to Star India Private Limited. The Court also directed the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary notifications calling upon various Internet Service Providers to block access to the websites in question. (Read here)