Court restrained a commercial comparing the health drink COMPLAN with HORLICKS
The High Court of Delhi restrained, Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. (“Zydus”) from airing a commercial comparing its health drink COMPLAN with HORLICKS. Horlicks Limited and others (“Plaintiffs”), claimed that the manner and storyline of the commercial shows Zydus’s intent to denigrate the plaintiffs’ health drink HORLICKS. On the other hand, Zydus claimed that the intent and effect of the commercial was to educate consumers that the protein content in one cup of COMPLAN was equal to two cups of HORLICKS, as per recommended serving sizes of 33 grams and 27 grams, respectively, provided on the packages. The court noted that there was no voiceover regarding the disclaimer on serving sizes in the commercial, and a time of six (6) seconds was not sufficient for viewers to read the disclaimer. The court held that the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction restraining Zydus from airing the said commercial which disparages the Plaintiffs’ product, and in case no interim injunction is granted, the Plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss.
Dainik Jagran Sues Telegram for Copyright Infringement
Dainik Jagran (“Plaintiff”) brought a suit against Telegram (“Defendant”) and unnamed defendants operating certain Telegram channels, which allegedly circulate versions of the Plaintiff’s newspaper through PDF. The version circulating is downloaded from the Plaintiff’s web-portal, where registered users can view the e-paper free of cost. According to the plaint, the Plaintiff has also included a technological protection measure which restricts the download of the e-paper.
While Telegram was served notices on the alleged infringement occurring through its channels, it did not respond, and consequently, the Plaintiff brought a suit for copyright and trademark infringement against Telegram as an intermediary, and against the users, owners, and operators of the various ‘channels’ on which the alleged infringement was taking place. The Court found prima facie infringement of Dainik Jagran’s copyright and subsequently granted the ad-interim injunctions prayed for, directing Telegram to furnish information about the administrators and members of the channels, and directing Telegram to take down the infringing channels.
As per the landmark judgement in the Myspace v. Super Cassettes intermediaries (like Telegram) can take the cushion of Section 79 of the IT Act, which is a safe harbor for the intermediaries. The only two conditions that are necessary to shelter under this safe harbor is that the intermediary should not have the ‘actual knowledge’ of the content being illegal, and also, it did not fail to take down such a content when such an information was given. In the present case, the notice plays a vital role where Telegram was apprised of the infringing content by Dainik Jagran’s notice, but they chose to ignore the same.
Delhi HC Temporarily Injuncts Textile Company from Selling Face Masks Having the Logo of Tommy Hilfiger.
Tommy Hilfiger (“Plaintiff”) has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s trademark ‘TOMMY HILFIGER’ with its variations and the flag logo i.e. ‘TOMMY HILFIGER’, ‘TOMMY’, ‘TOMMY SPORT’ and (the Flag Logo) which is registered in various classes as mentioned in para 16 of the plaint. Taqua Textile (“Defendant”) was producing and selling masks with these figures in their product. After, proper Investigation it was concluded that the Defendant waswrongly using the names and mark of the Plaintiff.
No monopoly over the term ‘Magic Masala’ : Madras High Court
In a tussle between ITC-Nestle, a single judge bench of the Madras High Court decided against ITC (“Plaintiff”), who had sought a permanent injunction against Nestle (“Defendant”) to prevent them from using the mark ‘Magic Masala’, which Plaintiff claimed had achieved distinctiveness. Plaintiff claimed that Nestle was passing off its noodle product Maggi Noodles with use of the phrase “Magical Masala” while describing the flavor. The court opined that the terms ‘Magic’ and ‘Masala’ are commonly used terms in the package and food industry by different manufacturers and it would be unfair to confer monopoly over the same expression. The court further held that such adoption cannot be said to be malafide. It was a legitimate adoption by the Defendant as no person can appropriate common and laudatory words.
Leave a Reply