1. Louis Vuitton v. Lee Vanz – Sellers to pay Rs 1 lakhs to the French Company

In the trademark infringement suit filed by the French company, Louis Vuitton against two sellers, Bilal Khan and Javed Khan for using the iconic “LV” mark, the sellers have undertaken to pay litigation cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the company.

The Plaintiff company apprised the Delhi High Court that they had no objection over the use of the trade name Lee Vanz but only the abbreviated mark ‘LV’. The sellers will pay the amount in 5 installments before January 15, 2023.

The order of the Court dated September 9, 2022 can be accessed here.

  1. Coke Studio v. Cook Studio – Trademark suit settled after Mediation

The suit filed by Mr. Nikhil Chawla against The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC) seeking declaration of non-infringement of the registered trademark ‘Coke Studio’ has now been settled in mediation. Chawla runs a popular online platform called ‘Cook Studio’ and is engaged in blogging and production of videos related to cooking.

The Delhi High Court had issued summons in the suit to TCCC and the parties were referred to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. As per the settlement, Chawla will now adopt the mark ‘Cook Pro 6’ and shall abandon the mark ‘Cook Studio’ by November 30, 2022.

The order of the court dated September 12, 2022 can be accessed here.

  1. Delhi High Court directs Domain Name Registrars to appoint Grievance Officers under IT Rules 2021

Delhi High Court has directed various domain name registrars (DNRs) to appoint grievance officers in compliance of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 within a period of one week.

The Court further stated that failure by DNRs to comply with this direction would lead to Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to proceed against such DNRs as per law who have been offering domain name registration, hosting and related services in India, without complying with the local laws.

The direction has come in the light of multiple pleas filed by trademark and brand owners, seeking reliefs against the misuse of their marks and names by unauthorized persons, who are registering trademarks as part of their domain names.

The order of the court dated September 14, 2022 can be accessed here.

  1. Delhi High Court – NOC of Trademark Office mandatory for claiming copyright registration of artistic work

Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court headed by Justice Pratibha Singh observed that for a person to obtain copyright registration of an artistic work, being used or capable of being used in respect of any goods and services, the no objection certificate (NOC) from the trademark office is mandatory under proviso of Section 45(1) of Copyright Act, 1957.

The said proviso states that an application for entering the particulars of a copyright work in the Register of Copyrights shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Registrar of Trademarks to the effect that no trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been registered or that no application has been made for such registration.

The order of the court dated September 07, 2022 can be accessed here.

  1. Gujarat High Court – no infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act if person holds Certificate by Registrar or License by Owner

The Gujarat High Court recently explained that when a person uses a copyright without the permission of the license owner or the Registrar, it shall amount to an infringement of copyright under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957. If a person had a certificate issued by Registrar of Copyright, then Section 64 of the Copyright Act cannot be invoked.

The order of the court dated September 14, 2022 can be accessed here.

  1. Samsung India restrained by Bengaluru Civil Court against the use of Concierge Trademark

A civil court in Bengaluru issued a temporary injunction against the use of the mark ‘Concierge’ by Samsung India and Story Experiences. The mark is claimed by Concierge conglomerate comprising Lesconcierges Services Pvt. Ltd. And Club Concierge Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Plaintiff claimed that they conceptualized and designed the ‘President Club’ loyalty program for Samsung. However, last year Samsung hired Story Experiences for identical services and started using their registered mark ‘Concierge’.

The order of the Court dated September 13, 2022 can be accessed here.

  1. Facebook India approaches Bombay High Court against Order to pay compensation to man for fraudulent advertisement

Facebook India Online Services and META Platforms Inc have approached the Bombay High Court against the Order given by the Consumer Redressal Commission directing the company to pay Rs. 25,599 to a daily wage labourer for non-delivery of a product that he purchased online and fraudulent advertisements on its platform. The amount Rs. 25,599 constituted of Rs. 599 for non-delivery of the product and Rs. 25,000 for mental agony.

  1. Case filed against Ajay Devgn’s upcoming film “Thank God” for hurting religious sentiments

A case has been filed by a lawyer in Uttar Pradesh’s Jaunpur court against the upcoming film starring Ajay Devgn, Siddharth Malhotra for hurting religious sentiments. The petitioner claims that the movie mocks religion and the trailer of the movie shows Ajay Devgn playing the character of Chitragupta and cracking jokes and using objectionable language. The movie is slated to release on October 24, 2022.

  1. Bombay High Court refuses to intervene in pleas by Asianet, Disney India, Star India against CCI for lack of jurisdiction

Bombay High Court refused to exercise its territorial jurisdiction in the petitions filed by the broadcasting companies against the Competition Commission of India (CCI) initiating investigation against these companies. The companies sought extension of interim order, granted in April 2022, directing the CCI to not take any coercive action against these broadcasters and media and entertainment companies.

  1. Photographer files copyright infringement suit against Miley Cyrus

A paparazzi photographer, Robert Barbera, has filed a copyright infringement suit against Miley Cyrus, claiming that she reposted his 2020 photo. The image was shared with her 180 million followers without the permission from Barbera, who had registered the photo with the U.S. Copyright Office on April 11 but didn’t notice Cyrus posting it till a month later. He further claimed that the photo led to “increased traffic” to Cyrus’ account and caused an increase in her revenues generated through the sale of her music or associated business partnership.