Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Ravi Mohan Studios produced an additional typed-set showing that the attempted registration of the trade mark ‘BROCODE’ by Indo Bevs beverage company had been objected to and is pending consideration. Hence the Court issued interim relief.
“Defendant 1 is circulating fabricated videos of Ravi Shankar on Facebook and on other independent websites, utilizing advanced AI technologies, including ‘deepfake’ tools, to digitally impersonate the plaintiff’s voice, facial expressions, persona and likeness, thereby creating a false impression amongst the world at large that Ravi Shankar is personally speaking, endorsing or promoting the content therein.”
“Since 2011, through campaigns like ‘You Can Be Anything’ and initiatives such as the Shero program and Fashionistas collections, Mattel has promoted inclusivity, diversity, and women’s empowerment. With a vibrant online presence, scholarly attention, and millions of fans worldwide, the trademark BARBIE has evolved into a multifaceted brand symbolizing imagination, aspiration, and inspiration for generations.”
“The depiction of the Akkineni Nagarjuna in settings that are misleading, derogatory and inappropriate will inevitably have the effect of diluting the goodwill and reputation associated with him.”
“The identity in the defendant’s marks is so close to Mankind’s trade marks that the two are indistinguishable. The infringing activities of the defendant is likely to cause confusion in the course of trade of Mankind leading to erosion of consumers’ trust.”
“Given the commercial value of these publicity rights, a celebrity is entitled to safeguard his interest against any misuse of the personality attributes which includes his name, image, voice and likeness.”
“Relevant consumer base for the products which are deodorizers, air purifiers etc would be an average educated class with the ability to differentiate between the rival marks especially when there is no resemblance apart from a phonetic similarity between the two when viewed as a whole.”
The defendants were operating several websites and applications to trick the general public into believing that they were representatives/associates of Zepto and so as to scam them into paying for fake job opportunities with Zepto
Delhi High Court directed the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue a notification calling upon the various internet service providers and telecom service providers, registered under it to block access to the various websites identified by NDTV in the present suit or such other websites that may subsequently be notified by them.
“The Plaintiff’s registered marks are Device Marks and not Word Marks. Hence, no infringement can be brought merely because of the use of the word ‘YATRA’ by the Defendant as ‘YATRA’ is a generic and a descriptive word.”
“It is clear that whilst selling counterfeit products, these listings display marks/trademarks that are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s trade marks and constituting an act of passing off as well.
The Defendants were operating several websites and applications to trick the general public into believing that they were associated with Premji Invest so as to scam them into illegal and fraudulent investments.
The Defendant was discharged from service during the probation period itself and upon discharge he published statements and videos disparaging ICICI Bank.
The remedy under Section 9 is equitable, discretionary in nature and primarily exercised to preserve subject matter of arbitration or to prevent frustration of arbitral proceedings. Such power must be exercised cautiously, particularly where interim relief sought effectively amounts to grant of final relief or impinges upon statutory powers conferred under Companies Act, 2013.
A prima facie case has been made out by Hero Motocorp for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The balance of convenience is also in favour of Hero Motocorp and against the defendants.
“The defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s trade mark cannot be said to be an honest adoption as though having a registered trade mark, the defendant deviated from the mark and adopted a mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade mark.”
“Any confusion between the edible products, if allowed to continue, can lead to disastrous consequences on human health. Therefore, the Court must adopt more cautious and stringent approach for judging the likelihood of confusion and to exercise greater care.”
The plaintiffs submitted that the defendants, by manufacturing, using, displaying, advertising lookalike of the plaintiffs’ well-known products, are trying to create an unauthorized association with the plaintiffs, and deceive customers to believe that the plaintiffs have launched an affordable new range of products.
“Refusal to grant interim injunction at this stage would cause irreparable harm to Inox, as Cryogas—having no rights to the intellectual property—would be able to exploit Inox goodwill without any legal deterrent.”
Khaitan & Co represented Inox India before the Baroda District Court in securing interim injunctive relief against Cryogas Equipment