GOOGLE’S WARNING DOES NOT INFRINGE TRADEMARK FOR THIRD-PARTY APK FILES
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed Winzo Games Private Limited’s application seeking to restrain Google from flashing a warning cautioning against the use of its gaming app “Winzo Games” on the android operating system. The warning stated, “this sort of file may damage your device”. Such warnings against APK (Alpine Package Keeper) files are industry practice and guard potential users against malware. An APK file is the file format used to install the applications on android. Typically, users never see APK files because Android handles app installation in the background however, many websites offer direct APK file downloads for users who want to install apps manually. The court also noted that the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information Rules, 2011, both require Google to implement such warnings in order to protect users against potential threats. The Court further observed that the requirement of “use of the trademark in the course of trade” under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is not met because Google is not offering any goods or services under the contested trademarks.
COURT GRANTS INTERIM RELIEF TO GODADDY AGAINST SWIGGY
In the case of Budl Technologies Private Limited v. Aanit Awattam alias Aanit Gupta & Ors. the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 23rd January 2023, passed by Justice Manish Pitale directed GoDaddy, a domain name registrar to inform food delivery service Swiggy each time a domain name containing its trademark ‘SWIGGY’ is registered, to enable them to take the appropriate actions against them. In November 2022, Swiggy filed a suit against 13 (thirteen) individuals/entities for infringing the registered trademark and using its domain names that were allegedly deceptively similar to ‘Swiggy’. Such individuals/entities were posing as Swiggy’s employees or associates and duping innocent individuals out of money with the promise of on boarding them on the “Swiggy Instamart Platform”. GoDaddy appealed the aforementioned order, and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court bench comprising of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Rajesh Patil granted an interim stay on the aforementioned order.
COURT DECLARES “H” MARK OF HERMES INTERNATIONAL AS A WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has recognized Hermes International’s stylized “H” as a well-known trademark. This decision was made in response to a lawsuit filed by Hermes against Crimzon Fashion Accessories Private Limited, claiming that it infringed on Hermes trademark for luxury footwear. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision was based on the criteria specified in sections 11(6) and (7) of the Trade Marks Act of 1999. Section 11(6) sets out factors such as knowledge, recognition, duration, and extent of that trademark, whereas section 11(6) sets out factors such as actual or potential consumers, which are to be taken into consideration by the Registrar while determining whether a mark is well-known. Since 1997, the letter “H” has become a style icon and is regarded as a fashion classic. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has permanently enjoined Crimzon from using the mark and ordered that infringing content be removed from the website.
COURT REJECTS APPLICATION OF SCI- HUB’S FOUNDER
Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Sci-Hub and Library Genesis in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in December 2020, for allegedly granting free access to paywalled study material from different publishers. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court restricted the sites from posting, publishing, or making any articles accessible until 6 January, 2021. Sci-Hub argued that since it offers educational tools to researchers, academicians and students, it qualifies for an exception under India’s copyright law for fair dealing. Further, it claimed that the publishers’ reliance on assignment agreements did not grant them ownership of the contested works’ copyrights. On 20 February, 2023, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rejected Alexandra Elbakyan’s request for seeking rejection of the plaint filed against her.
DELHI COURT DIRECTS TRIVENI INTERCHEM PVT. LTD. TO PAY DAMAGES OF RUPEES TWO CRORE TO PFIZER FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
In the present case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court granted ad-interim relief in the case Pfizer Inc & Ors. Vs Triveni Interchem Private Limited & Ors. vide order dated 21st October 2021 to restrain Triveni from making, selling and distribution of any product, which has as an ingredient ‘Palbociclib’ in it. Despite the order, Triveni continued trading and selling generic Palbociclib in a different packing on its website and IndiaMart. Furthermore, Triveni filed a false affidavit claiming that they had dealt with Palbociclib only in July 2022 and there was no other contravention done by them. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Triveni had made a false submission in the court and directed Kamlesh Singh, director of Triveni, to pay to Pfizer an amount of INR 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Only), within a period of 2 (two) weeks, failing which, he would be taken into custody and detained in civil imprisonment for 2 (two) weeks at Tihar Jail.