Barodawala Mansion, 81, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Mumbai

IPR weekly Highlights (24)

8 (Demo)
TRADEMARK
INJUNCTION ISSUED, BARRING USE OF TRADEMARKS ASSOCIATED WITH “KALYAN” AND “KALYAN JEWELLERS”

Kalyan Jewellers initiated a lawsuit for trademark and domain infringement against Antony Adams and others in the Madras High Court, pertaining to the trademarks ‘Kalyan’ and ‘Kalyan Jewellers’, as well as the domain ‘kalyanjewellers.com’. Kalyan Jewellers asserted that they adopted these trademarks in 1993 and have since extensively used them. Further, they emphasized their global presence, partnerships with celebrities, trademark registrations for ‘Kalyan’ and ‘Kalyan Jewellers’ in classes 14, 16, and 35 across multiple countries, and substantial investments in advertising costs. The Court issued an ex-parte injunction prohibiting the defendants from using the trademarks ‘Kalyan’ and ‘Kalyan Jewellers’. Additionally, the Court directed the defendants to cease using the domain name and ordered the domain registrar to transfer ownership of kalyanjewellers.com to the plaintiff.

Reference: 

(1) M/s Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd v/s Antony Adams & Ors., Madras High Court, 19th February 2024, C.S. No.335 of 2020
TRADEMARK
MAKEMYTRIP TAKES GOOGLE TO SC OVER TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

The SC dismissed MakeMyTrip’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to lift interim restraining orders against Google and Booking.com for using the ‘MakeMyTrip’ (MMT) mark as a keyword on the Google Ads Program. MakeMyTrip contends that its competitor, Booking.com, has unfairly purchased the ‘MakeMyTrip’ keyword through Google Ads, resulting in sponsored links to Booking.com appearing first in Google search results for the said keyword MakeMyTrip. It further asserted that such practices divert its business to competitors and erode the distinctive identity it has meticulously cultivated over its 24 years of operation. The apex Court noted that while Booking.com utilized the ‘makemytrip’ keyword, it did not cause confusion as users would not access Booking.com intending to visit MakeMyTrip and consequently, the bench dismissed the interim plea.

Reference: 

(1) MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited vs. Google LLC SLP(C) No. 001575 – 001576 / 2024
COPYRIGHT
WIN-LOSE FOR ELON MUSK’S X

The US Federal Court has granted partial approval for the continuation of a copyright infringement lawsuit against Elon Musk’s social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter). Filed in June 2023 by the National Music Publishers’ Association, the lawsuit alleges that X infringed on more than 1,700 songs. The plaintiff also contended that X was slow to respond to copyright infringement notices and failed to take sufficient steps to address repeat offenders. The Court upon investigation found that X gave more liberty to paying “verified” subscribers in illegally sharing copyrighted music compared to non-paying users. The Court has allowed these claims to proceed, contingent upon proving that X intentionally facilitated the alleged infringement. However, the Court dismissed claims by music publishers that X was directly responsible for the theft of artists’ intellectual property.

Reference: 

COPYRIGHT
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT BATTLE CONTINUE FOR OPENAI

Digital news platforms, such as The Intercept, Raw Story, and AlterNet, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. The plaintiffs claimed that ChatGPT was publishing their news articles as its own without properly crediting or acknowledging them as sources. Further, the plaintiff alleges that ChatGPT models are trained and programmed in a way that eliminates these identifiers. Furthermore, the plaintiff contended that sometimes OpenAI would reproduce exact or nearly exact copyrighted work without giving due credit to the authors. In light of these allegations, the plaintiffs are seeking compensation for damages.

Reference: 

PATENT
KUDOS PHARMACEUTICALS EMERGES VICTORIOUS AGAINST NATCO PHARMA

Kudos’ filed a suit against Natco seeking a permanent injunction against producing and marketing the generic version of Olaparib, labeled BRACANAT, citing infringement of the suit patent. Natco contended that the suit patent lacked an inventive step, asserting that Olaparib failed to manifest a technical advancement over prior art, but the Court ruled in favor of Kudos, affirming that technical advancement over prior art is not a prerequisite for an inventive step to be encompassed within a patent claim. Despite Natco’s endeavors to impugn the suit patent’s validity under Section 64 of the Patent Act, the Court noted that there was no substantive basis for invalidating the patent. The Court acknowledged that Natco exploited the suit patent to manufacture and sell Olaparib in the nineteenth year of the patent’s life. Consequently, the Court issued a permanent injunction, restraining Natco from manufacturing, vending, or transacting Olaparib under the BRACANAT brand or any alternative branding, until the matter reaches a complete resolution, contingent upon the suit patent’s validity.

Reference: 

(1) Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. vs Natco Pharma Limited CS(COMM) 29/2023, I.A. 907/2023

Related Posts

Leave a comment