TRADEMARK
DELHI TRADEMARK OFFICE REVOKES ACCEPTANCE OF 'CHUTIYARAM'
A major and befuddling blunder committed by the Delhi Trade Marks Registry (TMR), in its 'acceptance' for registration of the word 'CHUTIYARAM' under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, has come to public light. The TMR however has withdrawn its approval of the mark citing an error. A notification on 18th March 2025 stated that the mark, intended for namkeen and biscuits, was mistakenly accepted and is now subject to objections under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act. The Registrar has initiated proceedings under Section 19 and Rule 38 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, scheduling a hearing. Applicant Sadhna Goswami previously sought to register similar marks, all of which were objected to or refused, indicating a consistent stance against potentially abusive and offensive trademarks. The acceptance of the mark in question has raised serious concerns among intellectual property experts, about the functioning of the Registry.
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC DECLARES 'TAJ' A WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK
In a no-surprises move, the Delhi HC has recognized
'TAJ' as a well-known trademark under Section 2(1) (zg) of
the Trademarks Act, granting it protected status for hotels and
related services in the hospitality sector. The Indian Hotels
Company Limited (IHCL), part of the TATA Group, filed a suit
against multiple individuals for trademark infringement, copyright
violations, and passing off their services under the IHCL brand.
The HC ruled in IHCL's favor, citing the company's global
presence, widespread recognition, and strong goodwill associated
with the 'TAJ' brand.
Justice Amit Bansal's bench highlighted the brand's
extensive promotion, revenue generation, and historical
significance, fulfilling the criteria under Sections 11(6) and
11(7) of the Act. Earlier, IHCL's 'VIVANTA' mark had
been previously recognized as a well-known trademark in 2022. The
ruling reinforces the TAJ brand's prominence and ensures legal
protection against misuse.
TRADEMARK
COACH & TAPESTRY SUE SHEIN
Coach and its parent company, Tapestry, have filed a lawsuit
against Shein, accusing the fast-fashion giant of trademark
infringement, counterfeiting, and unfair competition. The lawsuit,
filed on 13th March 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, claims Shein is responsible for counterfeit
Coach goods being sold on the Shein website. According to Tapestry,
Shein facilitates these sales by providing logistical support,
including warehousing, packaging, and shipping and collects a
selling fee from third-party vendors. Coach and Tapestry argue that
Shein deliberately blurs the distinction between its own products
and those from third-party sellers, making it difficult for
consumers to differentiate between genuine and counterfeit
items.
The lawsuit also alleges that when consumers search for
"Coach" on Shein's website, they are not clearly
informed that products come from third-party sellers, creating
confusion and misleading consumers into believing Shein is the
direct seller of these items.
The plaintiffs have sought injunctive relief to prevent Shein from
selling counterfeit goods, as well as monetary damages, including
profits from counterfeit sales, and recall and destruction of all
infringing products.
1. Tapestry Inc. et al. v. Zoetop Business Co. Limited, 2:25-cv-02224 (C.D. Cal.)
COPYRIGHT
CBFC DENIES SATELLITE RIGHTS FOR MALAYALAM FILM 'MARCO'
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has denied
television satellite rights for the Malayalam film
"Marco" due to its excessive violence. CBFC's
Thiruvananthapuram Regional Officer confirmed that even after
significant cuts, the film failed to meet television broadcast
standards.
Initially certified 'A' for theatrical release, the makers
sought a category conversion to 'UA' or 'U' for TV
screening. However, CBFC rejected the application, citing the
film's pervasive violence, including scenes depicting brutality
against women and children. The board noted that at least 40
minutes of content would need to be removed for reclassification,
which would impact continuity. Before its theatrical release, a
ten-member CBFC revising committee reviewed "Marco" and
granted it an 'A' certificate after cutting extreme scenes
and adding warning cards. Marketed as Malayalam cinema's most
violent film, "Marco" has sparked debates in Kerala about
the impact of violent films on society, particularly in influencing
youth behavior.
COPYRIGHT
OVER 400 HOLLYWOOD STARS SIGN LETTER AGAINST AI GIANTS OVER COPYRIGHT USE
OpenAI and Google have proposed to the U.S. government that
their AI models be permitted to train on copyrighted material
without obtaining permission or providing compensation to rights
holders, in order to maintain US AI leadership against China.
This proposal, however, has ignited a fierce backlash from the
entertainment industry. More than 400 Hollywood celebrities have
responded with an open letter, arguing that granting such
exemptions would severely undermine the economic and cultural
strength of the entertainment sector which relies on copyright to
protect human expressions. "We firmly believe that
America's global AI leadership must not come at the expense of
our essential creative industries," the letter states,
emphasizing the potential damage to artists, writers, and other
creatives.
The celebrities maintain that tech giants should not be granted
special privileges to exploit copyrighted works for AI training, as
this would weaken copyright laws and inflict substantial harm on
the entertainment industry and other knowledge-based sectors.
PATENT
DELHI HC UPHOLDS REJECTION OF PATENT ON INDEFINITE CLAIMS
Abhishek Sharma's patent application, titled
"Innovative Change to Solve Any Dispute, Unexpected Business
Loss, Closures, Financial Loss, Unexpected Accidents",
purported to describe an invention related to the influence of
clothing color and its associated energies, on the brain and
interpersonal interactions, was rejected by the Assistant
Controller of Patents. The Controller cited Sharma's failure to
provide a sufficient description of the technical structure and
functional features of the alleged invention, rendering the claims
not definite and non-compliant with Section 10 of the Patents Act,
1970.
Subsequently, Sharma filed an appeal before the Delhi HC, after a
significant delay of 701 days, asserting that the same invention
had been granted patent protection in Germany. The HC noted that
Sharma failed to furnish any evidence substantiating his claim of
German patent registration. Moreover, the HC found the
Controller's rejection to be a well-reasoned order.
Consequently, Sharma's application for condonation of the
substantial delay in filing the appeal was also dismissed.
1.Mr. Abhishek Sharma & Anr. vs Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs; CA(COMM.IPD-PAT)4/2025, I.A. 3781/2025
PATENT
EPO (b) PATENT APPLICATION MUST BE JUDGED ON MERITS
Arcturus Therapeutics Inc., a U.S. based RNA medicine
biotechnology company, faced rejection of its patent application,
"Ionizable Cationic Lipid For RNA Delivery," by the
Indian Patent Controller for its failure to submit written
arguments within the stipulated timeframe. The Controller, citing
outstanding objections from a prior hearing notice and the absence
of pre-grant representations under Section 25(1) of the Patents
Act, refused the patent grant under Sections 15 and 43 of the
Patents Act.
Arcturus appealed this decision to the Delhi HC, arguing that the
delay in submitting written arguments was due to the time-consuming
process of conducting empirical studies required to provide
comparative data as directed by the Controller in the hearing
notice dated January 11, 2023.
The Delhi HC, in its ruling, acknowledged that rejecting a patent
application based solely on a procedural deficiency could severely
impact the applicant's invention. Emphasizing the principles of
natural justice and the value of patent rights, the HC directed the
Controller to issue a fresh hearing notice and reconsider Arcturus
Therapeutics' application on merits.
1.Arcturus Therapeutics Inc. vs Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs; CA(COMM.IPD-PAT) 40/2023)
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.
