Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Defendant 3 has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trade marks/artistic works and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks/labels without any plausible explanation.
The act of the defendants of playing the sound recordings in their restaurants/bars, for which the plaintiff holds the copyright would, on a prima facie view, amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in terms of Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The plaintiff Rahul Mishra is a leading Indian Fashion designer based out of Delhi and is engaged in creating exquisitely and luxuriously designed and handcrafted fashion clothes/ apparels under his own fashion label ‘RAHUL MISHRA’.
Discover the year’s most impactful IPR cases, including landmark decisions on copyright infringements, trademark conflicts, patent disputes, and more, shaping the future of intellectual property law.
The Court relied on Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406., wherein it was held that a claim for infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable, though in some manner the arbitrator would examine the right to copyright, a right in rem.
It was said that if no ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted, Mankind Pharma would suffer an irreparable loss.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The infringers were restrained from using Skechers’ trade mark and artistic works or any other trade mark or artistic work identical or similar to Skechers, till the next date of hearing.
These guidelines have come in the wake of a suo motu case concerning the controversial ‘Pakistan’ and ‘undergarment’ comments made by Karnataka High Court judge, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda.
The CIRF-in-IPHD of Chanakya National Law University, Patna is inviting research papers for the following journals under Volume V, Issue I &
The Delhi High Court said that the dynamic nature of the digital landscape necessitates that court orders are not static but evolve in tandem with technological advancements and challenges posed by the virtual domain.
The article on the websites describes a fake/made-up interview from the actual Interview of Mr. Ambani with Mr. Anand Narasimhan, a senior anchor and Managing Editor at CNN-News18 uploaded on Network 18 Media and Investments Limited, Youtube Channel.
The Court found it fit to grant a Dynamic+ injunction to keep up with the hydra-headed nature of the infringement actions of the websites.
“The Defendants have entirely imitated Plaintiff No. 1’s registered trademarks, replicating all aspects such as font of the letters, design of the logo, color scheme, size, style, and placement of letter and the taglines. Both the marks are also used for identical services.”
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in March 2024
Delhi High Court elucidated the treatment of subscription fees vis-à-vis royalties and technical services under both the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and the Income Tax Act and clarified the distinction between income from subscription fees and payments for intellectual property rights or technical consultancy services.
“The differences showed that extraordinary effort has been put by defendant in identifying differences and the broad similarities are so obvious at the first look that the differences are nudged into oblivion.”
“Impugned artistic work is not an original artistic work and primarily consists of mark ‘BOSS’, which does not belong to Respondent 1 and even the colour scheme of petitioner is substantially imitated by Respondent 1, which will supplement the finding that the impugned registration is not an original work.”
“Failure to grant such injunction is bound to result in continued infringement of copyright. Accordingly, the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also justify grant of interim injunction as sought.”
“It is further pointed out that, without filing any response to the present plaint, Defendant 2 is continuing to mislead the public into believing that no license is required to be obtained from the plaintiff before exploiting the recordings in which it has copyright.”