While the world looks forward to unlocking themselves from the lockdown due to Covid-19, the Indian business are also taking steps to safeguard their Intellectual Property Rights and unlock their potential. We bring to you some key developments in the field of Intellectual Property in the month of July 2020.

Sparsh Industries restrained from infringing trademark:

In this case, the Delhi High Court upheld the previously passed interim order that restrained the Defendant, Sparsh Industries, from using the mark ‘SPVOLVOIL’, even though the trademarks differed in words. Both the parties were engaged in the business of lubricants. The Defendant was using the mark ‘SPVOLVOIL’ and the Plaintiff’s registered mark was ‘VOLVO’. The balance of convenience was in the favor of the Plaintiff and hence directed the continuance of the interim order.

KS&Co. Comment – This is a classic example of a scenario where the marks are not identical but deceptively similar and the courts continue to safeguard the rights of that player in the market that has substantial existence. Hence, it is important to register your mark as early as possible in order to avoid such a hassle.

Disney’s cartoon successful in getting array of rogue websites blocked:

The Plaintiff (Disney Cartoons) is engaged in the business of creation, production and distribution of motion pictures / cinematograph films. The Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the fact that certain rogue websites have enabled down-streaming of their creative work without requisite licenses and thereby indulging in digital piracy. The Plaintiff had also made the concerned ministry as defendant. The Delhi High Court issued an interim John Doe order directing internet service providers to block a total of 118 rogue websites including KissCartoon, KissAnime, and GoGoAnime which have been broadcasting cartoon programmes copyrighted by Disney.

KS&Co. Comment – John Doe orders have been a regular in the court rooms of the Delhi High Court. The court never shies away from giving out such an order when it feels that multiple unidentified defendants are infringing the rights of a right holder. The courts in India have time and again restrained unidentified defendants from infringing intellectual property rights and have given numerous John Doe orders.

ITC once again granted relief over trademark and copyright infringement:

In a case of copyright and trademark infringement, Justice BP Colabawalla of Bombay High Court in the matter of ITC v. Godfrey Phillips (GPI) granted injunction to ITC over the words ‘FLAKE REFINED TASTE’ on the cigarette packaging. The Court also observed that every intelligent violator of copyright cannot introduce subtle changes to a proprietor’s copyright to claim non-infringement of copyright.

KS&Co. Comment – Copyright violators can go to any extent to pass off an existing copyright and claim a fresh copyright over someone else’s right. This is a classic case of such a scenario. The holder needs to be attentive and agile to make sure that someone else doesn’t take an undue advantage of their hard earned and well thought copyright. We appreciate that the Bombay High Court has been vigilant in granting relief to the plaintiffs in such a case.

Kashmir Valley’s saffron now registered as a Geographical Indication:

The Union Government issued a certificate of Geographical Indication to the Saffron grown in Kashmir Valley. The Kashmir saffron is the only one in the world grown at an altitude of 1600 meters which differentiates it from other varieties. Furthermore, the certification will stop the prevalent adulteration of Kashmir saffron, thereby, fetching better prices

KS&Co. Comment – Geographical Indicators have facilitated in enhancing and commercializing Indian culture. Saffron is not only known in India but around the world and used in a variety of recipes. The Registry has been active in granting registrations to the Geographical Indicators in India.

Louis Vuitton’s trademark ‘DamireAzur’ acquires distinctiveness:

The General Court of the European Union accepted Louis Vuitton’s contentions regarding the acquired distinctiveness of the mark ‘DamireAzur’. In 2008, Louis Vuitton was granted trademark protection by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) over the trademark. The same is extensively used on leather bags and related accessories. However, in 2016, the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO, on an application by a third party, declared the trademark invalid citing too common to be monopolized by a single brand as the reason for cancellation. The General Court held that consumers would only associate the pattern with Louis Vuitton.

KS&Co. Comment –The famous checks owned by the famous French brand, LOUIS VUITTON is a perfect example of identification by virtue of a pattern or design. Many other brands have acquired distinctiveness through long use of different patterns such as Three Strips by Adidas, Burberry Checks, Etc. The court in India have also time and again recognized such degisns as acquired distinctivenes.

Costs of Rs. 10 Lakhs imposed upon Patanjali:

The Madras High Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh on Patanjali for use of the trademark ‘Coronil’ for a drug developed and marketed as a cure for the novel coronavirus though in reality it is an immunity booster. The suit was filed by a Chennai based firm namely Arudra Engineering Private Limited which owns the trademark ‘Coronil’ since 1993. Though the market and mode of purchase of goods was completely different, the Court was of the view that Patanjali was chasing further profits by exploiting fear and panic among the general public.

KS&Co. Comment – The controversial story of the CORONIL case had picked up limelight when it allegedly claimed that the drug is capable of curing a coronavirus patient. The court rightly pointed out that even though the company values at a whopping 10,000 crores, it still runs after profits and wants to exploit the fear in the minds of the public of the pandemic. It is thus pertinent to do a Trade Mark search at the Trade Marks Registry before using any word or device. This judgement also throws light on another prosecution strategy that a comprehensive search is necessary in all the classes in order to be sure that the mark that one is planning to use in order to identify its brand, is not being used already by an existing proprietor.

Follow our content on LinkedIn #ksinghaniaco