TRADEMARK
PATANJALI DIRECTED TO DEPOSIT RS 50 LAKH FOR BREACH OF ORDER
On 30th August 2023, the Bombay HC issued an interim order in a trademark infringement suit, filed by Mangalam Organics Ltd. against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. (hereinafter referred to "Defendant") restraining Patanjali from selling or advertising camphor products. Patanjali had breached the earlier injunction order and it admitted that they were supplying camphor products subsequent to the injunction order and had sold camphor products for Rs 49.57 lakh post the injunction order. In June 2024, Patanjali issued a public apology, however, despite the same, Patanjali continued with the sale of the product.
Thus, for persistent breach of the Injunction Order, Patanjali was directed to deposit Rs 50 lakh in Court within a week. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 19 July 2024.
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC REFERS TO BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 IN TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE
Electrical appliances manufacturer KG Marketing India
("Plaintiff") filed a suit against two individuals
("Defendants") seeking an injunction against the use of
the mark 'SURYA'. Delhi HC referred to the recently
introduced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in
examining the case. The Plaintiff claimed their projects have been
advertised in various newspapers, while the Defendants argued that
they were the copyright owners of the 'SURYA GOLD' mark.
Further, the Defendants alleged that the aforesaid newspaper
advertisements were fabricated.
However, the court stated, "In these proceedings, since the
application was pending when the new statutes Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were
enacted, the matter would continue under the erstwhile Code
itself." Thus, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) and Indian
Penal Code (IPC) would be applicable in this matter. Hence, the
court dismissed the suit and restrained Plaintiff from using the
mark 'SURYA GOLD'.
Reference:
COPYRIGHT
MADRAS HIGH COURT STAYS RE-RELEASE OF KAMAL HASSAN STARRER FILM "GUNA"
Recently, a copyright infringement lawsuit was initiated by Mr.
Ghanshyam Hemdev ("Plaintiff") against the re-release of
the 1991 Tamil movie "Gunaa" starring Mr. Kamal Hasan.
The Plaintiff contended that he is engaged in the business of
financing, production, and aggregation of copyrights for
cinematographic films. He also submitted that he had acquired the
entire negative rights (i.e. the right of the author to prevent
others from copying his work) of 10 Tamil cinematographic films
(including the rights of Gunaa movie) from one Mr. N Rathnam who
held the world negative rights, vide an agreement dated 10.04.2008.
The Plaintiff contends that pursuant to the agreement he was
assigned all the rights pertaining to the film and additionally, he
had also obtained laboratory confirmation for the film.
In June 2024, Plaintiff discovered that "Guna" movie was
being re-released without his consent. Despite his request for
intervention from the Film Distributors Association, the movie was
re-released on July 5, 2024, using a forged agreement.
Consequently, the Plaintiff filed this suit to protect his
copyright rights and additionally requested the Court to
temporarily restrain the defendants from exhibiting and exploiting
the copyrights of the film. The court has allowed this prayer and
granted an ad-interim relief in his favor.
COPYRIGHT
SAREGAMA INDIA LTD. INITIATES A LAWSUIT AGAINST EMAMI LIMITED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
In an interesting news, Saregama India Limited.
("Plaintiff") has initiated a lawsuit against Emami
Limited ("Defendant") for unlicensed use of the song
"Udi Jab Jab Zulfein" ("Impugned Song") in an
advertisement for "Emami Kesh King Anti Hairfall
Shampoo". The Impugned Song is from an old film "Naya
Daur". The Plaintiff argued that they have been assigned all
the copyright rights including musical, literary, and sound
recording rights of the Impugned Song by the producer of the
aforesaid film for the entire term of sixteen years. This was also
established by the Indian Performing Right Society Limited
('IPRS'), a registered society for musical and literary
works, vide certificate dated 09-11-2023. Plaintiff informed that
Defendant had approached him for the grant of a license, however,
Plaintiff reiterated its rights. Further, Plaintiff contended that
the unauthorized use of the Impugned Song by Defendant infringed
his copyright rights under Section 14 of the Copyright Act (i.e.
the right to sell or give on commercial rent sound
recordings).
Contrarily, the Defendants argued that any rights of the Plaintiff
in the Impugned Song were only for sixty years beginning from
15.08.1957 when the movie was released and thus, their rights had
expired. The Court directed the Defendant to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs
with the Registry, clarifying that this is an interim arrangement
and it will reconsider the amount after hearing both parties at the
next hearing.
COPYRIGHT
GAURAV GUPTA INITIATES LAWSUITS AGAINST NINE COUNTERFEITERS
In an interesting news, Delhi-based fashion couturier Mr. Gaurav
Gupta (hereinafter referred to "Complainant") has filed
nine separate cases against alleged counterfeiters, based across
New Delhi, Mumbai, and Punjab, at the Delhi High Court. The
Complainant states that the counterfeiters copied their signature
sculpting techniques, misleading customers into thinking they were
purchasing his designs. The Plaintiff has claimed Rs 2 crore in
damages from each case and aims to obtain restraining orders
against all nine defendants.
The Delhi High Court acknowledged the rights of the Plaintiff.
Further, it has forbidden the defendants from manufacturing
counterfeit clothing and has ordered them to destroy all
counterfeit products which have already been made while also
removing all online content relating to them.
PATENT
DELHI HC ISSUES INTERIM INJUNCTION V/S ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES
Recently, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche
("Plaintiff") filed a patent infringement suit against
Zydus and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories ("Defendants")
pertaining to the breast cancer drug Sigrima, a biosimilar (i.e.
biologic medical product that is almost an identical copy of an
original product) of the Plaintiff's Perjeta (Pertuzumab). The
Defendants informed the Court that its drug had received
"conditional" approval on April 4 and marketing
permission from the National Institute of Biologicals on June 27.
However, the court objected to the launch of the drug lis pendens
and criticized the Defendant for not providing "timely
updates" about significant regulatory developments. Justice
Sanjeev Narula stated, "The timing of the product's launch
suggests a strategic move by the defendant (Zydus) to establish a
market presence before any potential judicial restrictions could be
imposed."
Consequently, the Delhi HC granted an interim injunction,
preventing the Defendants from selling its breast cancer drug until
all legal and regulatory concerns are conclusively resolved.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.