Delhi High Court grants John Doe Order in favour of ‘Aaj Tak’ in Trademark Infringement Suit
Justice Pratibha M Singh of Delhi High Court passed a john doe order in favour of the news channel, Aaj Tak, in a trademark infringement suit filed by it against various entities. The court observed and acknowledged the reputation and goodwill in the name and mark ‘AAJ TAK’ is well established.
The suit was filed by Living Media India Limited arguing that their registered mark ‘AAJ TAK’ is well-known and the Plaintiffs hold multiple accounts, profiles and handles on different social media platforms with millions of subscribers. There were various known and unknown parties using the trademark ‘AAJ TAK’ or using the derivations of this mark or logo.
The court issued directions for taking down of the marks which were identical or deceptively similar to the name or logo of AAJ TAK on social media platforms. The main suit is listed for hearing on August 3, 2022.
The order of the court dated 30.03.2022 can be accessed here.
Madras High Court admits Ilaiyaraaja’s plea seeking copyright on musical work in 30 films
The division bench comprising Justices M Duraiswamy and T V Tamil Selvi admitted a plea from music maestro Ilaiyaraaja to stay the operation of a single judge’s order that permanently restrained him from claiming copyright over entire musical work and sound recordings related to 30 feature films in South Indian languages, produced during the 1980s.
The matter arose when Indian Record Manufacturing Company Limited (INERCO) filed a suit against Ilaiyaraaja and Agi Music Sdn Bhd (Malaysia) and Unisys Info Solutions Private Limited (Haryana), seeking permanent injunction restraining them from in any manner infringing its copyright over the entire musical works and sound recordings contained in the schedule mentioned in the feature films.
Journalist ‘Phone Snatching Case’: Bombay High Court stays summons issued to Salman Khan
Bombay High Court grants relief to Salman Khan by staying the summons issued against him by the order of the Andheri Magistrate for his personal appearance in the case filed by a journalist again the actor and his body guard.
The lower court issued the order based on the private complaint filed by a report who alleged assault, abuse and criminal intimidation by the actor. The complaint also involved Khan’s body guard who allegedly snatched the reporter’s phone for when he recorded a video of the actor cycling on April 24, 2019.
Central Government blocks 22 YouTube Channels for their ‘Anti-India content’
The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has blocked 22 YouTube channels, including 18 Indian YouTube news channels and 4 Pakistan-based YouTube news channels, for allegedly spreading disinformation related to India’s national security and foreign relations.
The order stated that these channels used logos of TV news channels and false thumbnails to mislead the viewers. The ban also includes 3 Twitter accounts, 1 Facebook account and 1 news website.
Delhi High Court: Trademark disputes arising purely out of contractual rights and obligations are arbitrable
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed that all disputes that deal with the interpretation of the terms of a trademark agreement and are not related to the grant or registration of the trademarks can be decided in arbitration.
The Court further clarified that unless the dispute revolves around registration of trademarks, there is no legal requirement of raising the same before the Registrar of Trade Marks or the IP Division of the High Court.
Red Bull’s plea for injunction against Pepsi denied by the Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed the injunction application of Red Bull against PepsiCo from using the tagline “Stimulates Mind, Energizes Body” for its energy drink “Sting”. Red Bull’s plea stated that the impugned tagline is similar to its registered tagline “Vitalizes body and mind” which it is using since 1987 in 73 different countries across the world.
The suit was filed in August 2018 and in September 2018, the parties were referred for mediation. However, as per the order dated April 6, 2022, the mediation proceedings weren’t successful.
Delhi High Court asks for a mechanism from Centre for regular checks of “E-Commerce Sites” for compliance of Legal Metrology Rules
The Delhi High Court, while hearing a public interest litigation, asked the Central Government to devise a proper mechanism for conducting periodical checks of e-commerce platforms and ensure their compliance with various laws regarding display and packaging of products.
The direction given by the Court is to ensure proper display of details like MRP of the product, seller details including GST number, name of manufacturer, country of origin of product, etc. on the e-commerce websites.
Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction against “Satta Dream 11”
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the fantasy sports platform, “Satta Dream 11” in a trademark infringement suit filed by Dream11.
The Defendant was restrained from using the mark SattaDream11 or any deceptively similar variant as the trademark, trade name or domain name amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff’s mark. The Court has also directed Godaddy.com LLC to suspend access to the domain name www.sattadream11.com, within a period of one week.
The order of the Court dated 01.04.2022 can be accessed here.
Delhi High Court holds that a party applying for registration of a particular trademark estopped from claiming that it is a ‘descriptive’ mark
The Delhi High Court confirmed the ex-parte injunction granted in favour of “Plant Powered”, an entity dealing in sale and distribution of baby care and personal care products, in a trademark infringement suit.
The Court rejected the contention of the Defendant that the impugned mark is descriptive and there can be no monopoly over the same. The Defendant is also said to be using the name ‘Plant Powered’ as a trading style for identical goods.
Justice Pratibha M. Singh observed that “the fact that the Defendant itself applied for the trademark application and registration of the mark ‘PLANT POWERED’ means that they are estopped from claiming that the same is the description of the product’.
The judgement of the Court dated 22.03.2022 can be accessed here.
Delhi High Court to consider whether the use of a trademark as a keyword on Google Ad program would constitute infringement
Justice Pratibha M Singh will be adjudicating whether use of a trademark as a keyword on the Google Ad program, would constitute infringement. The question will be adjudicated in a case involving a Plaintiff company’s website ‘udchalo.com’. The Plaintiff obtained the registration of the mark “UdChalo” in Class 39. The Plaintiff filed the suit with the grievance that Defendants are using ‘UdChalo’ as an ad word on the Google Ads program to attract internet users to their websites.
The order of the Court dated 16.03.2022 can be accessed here.
Delhi High Court restrains 3 Chinese companies from infringing the ‘HTC’ trademark
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Asha Menon restrained three Chinese companies from using the ‘HTC’ trademark on their hair-grooming products as it is deceptively similar to the trademark of the Taiwanese tech giant HTC.
According to the plea, the Chinese companies manufacture electric hair trimmers, hair clippers and hair dryers bearing the HTC trademark and export the same to other Defendants in India. The Court observed that since both the trademarks are registered, a more holistic approach shall be taken to determine whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to interim protection.
Noting that HTC, Taiwanese Company which stands for High Tech Computer has gained immense recognition and popularity and indicates the origin of the products of the Plaintiff.
Ed Sheeran wins the ‘Shape of You’ copyright case
Singer and songwriter, Ed Sheeran, wins the copyright battle over his 2017 hit ‘Shape of You’. The Judge ruled that the singer had not plagiarized the 2015 song Oh Why by Sami Chokri. The Judge acknowledged the similarities between the one-bar phrase in Shape of You and Oh Why but stated that these similarities can only be considered as a starting point for a possible infringement.
