Delhi High Court grants interim relief to Ultra Tech Cement
In the present case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 4th November 2022 granted interim relief to Ultra Tech Cement. UltraTech is one of the largest manufacturers of cement and concrete in India and adopted its mark in the year 2003. The words ‘UltraTech/UltraTech Cements/Ultra’ form an essential, prominent, and distinguishing feature of the plaintiff’s mark. UltraTech also expended huge amounts in advertising and promoting its brand. The defendants adopted ‘Ultra Plus Cement’ as a corporate name and as a trademark. The Court noted that UltraTech has been declared as a ‘well-known trademark’ under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The goods of the plaintiffs and the defendants are the same and any resemblance in the marks is likely to deceive an unwary consumer of the association of the defendants’ products with the plaintiffs. The Court opined that the plaintiffs and general consumers are likely to suffer grave irreparable injury and therefore granted an ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
(2) Ultra Tech Cement Limited and Anr v. Ultra Plus Cement Pvt.Ltd and Ors., CS(COMM) 755/2022
STARBUCKS WINS THE INFRINGEMENT SUIT FOR ‘FRAPPUCCINO’
The present suit was initiated by the Starbucks Corporation praying for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain a Jaipur based café known as Lol Cafe from infringing and/or passing off the Starbucks registered trademark ‘Frappuccino’ and/or using its mark, including the ‘Brownie Chips Frappuccino’ or any other similar trademark in relation to their goods and services. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 23rd August 2019 issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Starbucks, restraining Lol Cafe from using Frappuccino mark in any manner on any of the products sold by them. Nonetheless, Lol Cafe continued to use the Frappuccino mark. Court noted that Starbucks has obtained registration of the trademark Frappuccino in India. The Court opined that Lol Cafe has adopted an identical mark, with the prefix ‘Brownie Chip’ used by Lol Cafe with the registered mark of Starbucks Frappuccino apparently intending to deceive an unwary consumer and to ride upon the reputation of the mark. Starbucks itself used its mark Frappuccino with a suffix depicting the flavors of its beverages, like ‘Java Chip Frappuccino’ and others. The adoption of the mark Frappuccino by Lol Cafe is, therefore, dishonest, and is intended to deceive unwary customers. The Court held that this amounts to infringement of Starbucks trademark and would also result in passing off the goods of Lol Cafe as that of Starbucks. Additionally, Starbucks was awarded the cost of the suit of approximately Rs.13, 00,000/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Only).
(2) Starbucks Corporation v. LOL Cafe & Anr., CS(COMM) 452/2019 & I.A.11495/2019, 13114/2022]
STAR INDIA OBTAINS ORDER FROM THE COURT TO BLOCK PIKASHOW
Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction against the mobile application PikaShow App, for posting content over which the Star India Pvt. Ltd had exclusive rights and copyright. The Court held that a large volume of infringing content coupled with the manner in which the App is sought to be made accessible and downloadable by users by using various deceptive methods leaves no manner of doubt in the mind of the Court that the intention of PikaShow is to clearly subvert any technological measures that may be there on established platforms, to ensure that infringing content can continue to be streamed. Additionally, the App permits advertising and thus monetary benefit was also being derived therefrom. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the PikaShow App and/or its owners/operators from making available the said App through any of the domain names or websites. The Court instructed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) to issue blocking orders against the PikaShow App and related source domains.
(2) Star India Pvt Ltd and Anr V. Pikashow Application and Ors., CS(COMM) 759/2022
VIACOM18 OBTAINS INTERIM INJUNCTION TO BLOCK UNLICENSED WEBSITES FROM STREAMING FIFA WORLDCUP
Viacom18 Media has been granted the licence by Federation Internationale De Football Association (FIFA) qua FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 for media rights including rights for distribution, broadcast, stream the Series/Event within the territories of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Viacom 18 has approached the court to block the several cable and internet service providers that are involved in unauthorized retransmitting, recording, streaming of audio-visual clips and full sports event and other such similar activities. Viacom18 has invested substantial sums of money in acquiring the license and exclusive rights of the event and the illegal streaming of the FIFA game would cause it a heavy loss, damage and prejudice. The Hon’ble Madras High Court ordered the blocking of certain websites/web pages and granted an order of interim injunction restraining the Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and others or any other person or entity from infringing the copyright of Viacom18 in the sporting event FIFA world cup 2022 in any manner.
(2) Viacom18 Media Private Limited v Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, CS (Comm.Div) No.227 of 2022
AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION V/S CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
In the present case, an appeal is filed by the Avery Dennison Corporation seeking an order to set aside the decision dated 12th August, 2021 of the Controller General of Patents and Designs refusing the grant of a patent titled ‘Notched Fastener’ since he believed there was an lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. Avery Dennison disputes this assertion and states that in the present case, the distinction between the prior art and the subject patent primarily resides in the shape, position, and engagement with the notch as also with the manner in which the detachment takes place when the fastening happens. The prior art document D2 also belongs to Avery Dennison, and the subject patent application was filed almost 18 (eigtheen) years after the filing of D2. The complete specification explains clearly the disadvantages of the prior art and sets out in clear terms the various advantages of the subject invention. If the invention was so obvious, fasteners and fastener stock being products used in bulk in industries, any third party could have made the changes in the prior art to arrive at the subject invention. The Court opined that the improvement in the present case between the prior art and the subject invention is clearly decipherable and the same does not lack inventive step. The differences which the Controller describes as `superficial’ may appear simple but clearly have an impact on the product concerned. It is thus clear that simplicity in the invention should not deter the Court from granting a patent.
(2) AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION V. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS, C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 29/2021