TRADEMARK
NO TM RIGHTS OVER 'SHREE RAM'
Descendants of Balkrishna Shah ('Plaintiff') sued their cousin Ashutosh Shah('Defendant') for using their trademark "Shree Ram Vastra Bhandar" for his shop. The Plaintiff claimed that he has been using the trademark for their clothing shop since 1975 and its logo is also registered. The Defendant's shop is in the same name and also mentions 'since 1975' in the hoarding of the shop. The Calcutta HC observed that a deity's name is a generic term and an individual cannot have monopoly on such terms. The Court further said that any family member can use the name of the family business. This is a settled principle of law. The family member who got the registration of the trademark does not have exclusive rights. He can only run the business with a registered trademark.
TRADEMARK
BURGER KING LOSES TM DISPUTE AGAINST LOCAL RESTAURANT IN INDIA
In a fascinating case, Burger King Corporation sought a permanent injunction and damages from the Court to restrain a Pune-based restaurant from using the name 'BURGER KING'. The Defendant argued saying that the suit was malafide and was instituted only to discourage business people who are bonafide users and retailers. They also argued that apart from the name, there is no similarity in the plaintiff's trademark and their shop name. They further contended that Burger King Corporation has not used the trademark for almost three decades in India since its registration. Judge Sunil Vedpathak decided in favour of the Pune restaurant, noting that the local Burger King had been using the name and brand since 1992, long before Burger King Corporation registered its trademark in India. The Court found no evidence to support Burger King Corporation's claim that customers were confused by local eatery's use of name. The Court observed that Burger King Corporation has 'miserably failed' to prove trademark infringement by the local restaurant and financial loss due to alleged infringement. The owners of the local outlet had counterclaimed damages due to harassment during the lengthy legal battle. The Court however refused any monetary relief to them due to lack of proof to substantiate their claims.
TRADEMARK
SHANGHAI COURT SENTENCES THREE IP INFRINGERS IN ZESPRI CASE
The accused bought locally cultivated kiwifruit from farmers in Sichuan province and used counterfeit Zespri's registered trademark labels and packaging. Furthermore, they sold these packaged and tagged produce and brought in around ¥ 3.2 million. Shanghai court penalized the infringers and sentenced them to three years and nine months in jail. Zespri China's president believes that this verdict ensures a strong message of zero tolerance for illegal activities involving counterfeit use of Zespri trademark and intellectual property.
Reference:
COPYRIGHT
INDIAN ATHLETES TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST PUBLICITY RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Indian Olympic athletes including PR Sreejesh and Manu Bhaker are taking legal action against advertisers. These advertisers had unauthorizedly used their name, logo, image or likeness for commercial purposes. Sports Marketing agency, Baseline Ventures has issued a legal notice to brands on behalf of PR Sreejesh and IOS Sports has issued a legal notice to brands on behalf of Manu Bhaker. These brands had used their images or names in their marketing campaigns without obtaining prior permission from the athletes. PR Sreejesh has won the bronze medal while Manu Bhaker has won two bronze medals at the Paris Olympics. Sachin Tendulkar was among the first athletes to take legal actions against such brands.
PATENT
GUJARAT HC REJECTS INJUNCTION FILED BY SONALI INDUSTRIES
The HC of Gujarat upheld the Trial court's order in the case of Sonali Industries Private Limited ('Appellant') v. Galactica Processing Technologies LLP & Ors ('Respondents'). The Appellant had alleged that the Respondents had infringed upon its patent for a diamond holding device used in the HPHT (high pressure, high technology) treatment of diamonds. The Appellant further contended that the Respondent were the previous employees and had breached their obligation of confidentiality by using the confidential information disclosed to them. The Respondents knew the Appellant's know-how, technical details, proprietary rights, and confidential information. The Respondents had argued that the patent was not novel and technology description in the patent was already known and used before the patent's priority date. The Respondents further stated that the technology is based on prior art from the V. Bakul Institute for Superhard Materials NAS of Ukraine, which has already been published in the public domain. The HC dismissed the appeal and rejected the injunction application as the Appellant failed to prove that the patent was new and inventive compared to the prior art.
PATENT
IIT (MADRAS) V/S CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS
IIT Madras filed a patent application entitled 'Method of Doping Potassium into Ammonium Perchlorate. The First Examination Report cited an existing document and raised objections about novelty, inventive step, and patent eligibility basis Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 ('Act'). IIT Madras responded by amending the application. Despite this, the hearing letter which was issued maintained the objections under Sections 2(1) (ja) and Section 3(d) of the Act. IIT Madras made oral and written submissions with new claims. The Controller then refused the patent application under Section 2(1) (ja), 3(d) and 3(a) of the Act, leading IIT Madras to file an appeal. The Court found that the Controller improperly rejected IIT Madras's patent application on frivolous grounds under Section 3(a), which was not mentioned before. The Court further noted the inventive step test, according to which the claimed invention must possess both the following characteristics:
'(i) it must exhibit technical advancement as compared to
the existing knowledge or have economic significance in the
industry or both of the above; and
(ii) the purported technical advance must not be obvious to a
person skilled in the art.'
The Court agreed that the invention was not patentable under
Section 3(d) because it did not involve a new reactant or result in
a new product, and also lacked an inventive step under Section
2(1)(ja) due to insufficient evidence of economic significance.
However, the Court rejected the Controller's claims regarding
frivolousness and industrial applicability but upheld the rejection
based on Sections 3(d) and 2(1) (ja).
(1)Indian Institute of Technology V. Controller of Patents and Designs,2024 SSC Mad 2126
MISCELLANEOUS
OLA SAYS THAT DRIVERS ARE NOT THE EMPLOYEES OF OLA
Karnataka High Court was hearing the plea filed by a woman ('Aggrieved') alleging that she was sexually harassed by an Ola driver in August 2018. She further alleged that no appropriate action was taken by Ola following her complaint. She contended that the driver kept staring at her through the rear-view mirror and was watching a pornographic video on his mobile phone in a manner that was visible to her. The driver had also been masturbating and refused to stop the cab before the destination. Since Ola did not take appropriate action against the driver except blacklisting him and sending him to counselling, the Aggrieved filed a formal police complaint. The Internal Complaints Committee ('ICC') of Ola contended that drivers are not the employees of Ola. Then the Aggrieved moved the Karnataka High Court to seek action against the driver under provisions of the POSH Act. The counsel for Ola contended that Ola is merely an intermediary like Amazon or Flipkart. However, the Court said that Ola cannot compare itself to an online marketplace. There is hardly any scope for sexual allegations in the case of intermediaries like Amazon or Flipkart.
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.