[ad_1]
Right here is our recap of final week’s prime IP developments together with summaries of the posts on Delhi HC’s ruling on Movie star Rights and the Powers of Regional Administrators below Firms Act vis a vis Trademark Similarity. This and much more on this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Assessment. Something we’re lacking out on? Drop a remark under to tell us.
Highlights of the Week
Movie star (Rights) within the Information Once more: Rajat Sharma and Mohan Babu approached the court docket in search of everlasting injunction restraining infringement of their character and publicity rights. The Delhi HC restrained the defendants in each instances from infringing the plaintiff’s character rights. Learn Kaustubh Chakrabarti’s publish on these orders by the Delhi Excessive Courtroom!
Different Posts
Can Regional Administrators below Firms Act make trademark determinations? Learn this Tidbit by Kaustubh Chakrabarti on the Delhi HC ruling that the Regional Director below the Firms Act has no jurisdiction to resolve possession of a trademark.
Name for Submissions: GNLU’s Journal of Legislation and Know-how
Gujarat Nationwide Legislation College, Gandhinagar is inviting submissions for its Journal of Legislation and Know-how [(ISSN: 3048-9989 (Print)] on a rolling foundation. The journal encourages paper submissions specializing in the amalgamation of any space of know-how and legislation. Articles, Essays, and Ebook Opinions/Case Commentary/Brief Notes are invited for submissions!
Case Summaries
The plaintiffs have been engaged within the enterprise of commerce {of electrical} items and home equipment and are the proprietors of the trademark ‘GOLDMEDAL’ (each the phrase per se and the creative method) which was acquired in 1979-80 via its predecessor firm. They contended that the defendants have been engaged in the same enterprise and have been utilizing the mark of ‘MEDAL’ which was phonetically and artistically similar to their registered trademark. The defendants may neither show registration of trademark of their label nor did they’ve a legitimate license. Furthermore, the Courtroom held that the deceptively related label may present confusion within the minds of the general public. The Courtroom, due to this fact, granted a everlasting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from utilizing the label ‘MEDAL’.
Ms Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd vs Ms S.R. Merchants Ors on 21 December, 2024 (Delhi District Courtroom)
The plaintiff is engaged within the enterprise of attire and different allied and cognate items and are the homeowners of the trademark ‘LOUIS PHILIPPE’. The defendants are in the same enterprise and have been alleged utilizing deceptively equivalent marks like ‘LOUIS PHILLIPE’ and ‘LORIS PHILIPPE’. The Courtroom discovered that the registered logos of the plaintiff are within the public area. The defendants additionally deserted their defence within the go well with. An ex parte injunction was beforehand handed towards the defendants. Because the defendants didn’t come ahead to place ahead any defence, the plaintiff’s submissions have been deemed to be admitted. The Courtroom issued a everlasting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from utilizing such a mark.
Asics Company vs Hardev Group of Footwear on 16 December, 2024 (Delhi District Courtroom)
The plaintiff is a Japanese Company and is engaged within the enterprise of producing and buying and selling footwear, clothes, sportswear, and many others. The plaintiff is the proprietor of assorted ASICS formative logos/labels in relation to its stated items and enterprise. The defendants are engaged in manufacturing and sale of footwear and have allegedly adopted marks or labels that infringe on the plaintiff’s logos. The premises of the defendants have been searched and infringed items bearing impugned labels have been seized. The Courtroom discovered that the plaintiff had efficiently proved his case and held it entitled to a decree of everlasting injunction towards the defendant.
Levi Strauss And Co vs Tasleem Ahmad on 21 December, 2024 (Delhi District Courtroom)
The plaintiff is an organization registered within the USA. It’s engaged within the enterprise of producing and advertising and marketing of clothes and different equipment below the trademark Levi’s is carrying on its enterprise in Delhi via its unique franchise and showrooms. It alleged that the defendant was engaged in manufacturing and promoting counterfeit items bearing infringing logos of “Levi’s marks.” The Courtroom held that the plaintiff was entitled to decree of everlasting injunction towards the defendant. The plaintiff was additionally awarded punitive damages of Rs. 2,00,000.
Evergreen Candy Home vs Jv Evergreen Sweets and Treats on 23 December, 2024 (Delhi HC)
The plaintiff, a registered partnership agency engaged within the enterprise of getting ready and promoting Indian sweets and savouries, is the proprietor of a legitimate and subsisting trademark of ‘EVERGREEN’. The defendants have been alleged to be passing off this trademark for unjust enterprise features. The Courtroom reiterated that there are three components that are essential for a passing off motion. Goodwill and status attained by the plaintiff, misrepresentation by the defendant and the harm triggered to the plaintiff’s goodwill and status by the acts of the defendant. Since all three components might be proved, the defendant was restrained from utilizing the ‘EVERGREEN’ mark.
Different IP Developments
Worldwide IP Developments
[ad_2]