TRADEMARK
NO SETTLEMENT IN INDIGO-MAHINDRA ‘6E’ TM DISPUTE
As reported by us in our earlier bulletin on 6th February, 2024, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. (IndiGo) (Plaintiff) had filed a trademark infringement suit against Mahindra Electric Automobile Ltd (Defendant) before the Delhi HC on December 2024, alleging that Defendant’s use of the name ‘BE 6e’ for its electrical car infringes Plaintiff’s ‘6E’ mark. The Plaintiff claims that its callsign mark “6E” is a part of its brand identity, and the Defendant’s use of its similar mark is likely to cause consumer confusion and jeopardise its brand. However, the Defendant contended that its “BE 6e” mark was registered under Class 12 for motor vehicles and therefore was distinct from Plaintiff’s registrations in airline related services. The Delhi HC noted that the mediation attempt between the parties as suggested by it had failed and no settlement was reached. The matter has now been listed in Delhi HC for further hearing.
1.Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) v. Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited & Anr., CS (COMM) 1073/2024
TRADEMARK
THE “HAVELLS” TM DISPUTE COMES TO AN END
The long running trademark dispute between Havells India Limited and HPL Electric and Power Limited finally comes to an end after the two parties reached a settlement over the use of brand name “HAVELLS”. Havells India claimed exclusive rights to the brand name “HAVELLS” and challenged its use by the HPL group. The dispute was contested in multiple courts including the Delhi HC and the SC of India.
Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through mediation before the Delhi HC. As a part of the settlement, the HPL group has acknowledged Havells India’s rights to the “Havells” trademark and has agreed to pay a one-time full and final settlement of Rs. 129.60 crore. Additionally, the HPL group has waived off all the past and future claims to the “HAVELLS” trademark and agreed to change the corporate names of its key entities to no longer contain the disputed mark.
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC RESTRAINS USE OF GOLDEY MARK
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi Commercial Court against Rama Biswas (Defendant) for using the mark “Goldey”. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s mark and packaging were deceptively similar to its well-established mark “Goldie” mark. The Plaintiff claimed that the similarity between the marks could mislead the consumers and create a false association with the Plaintiff, amounting to passing off and violation of the plaintiff’s trademark rights.
The Delhi Commercial Court held that the marks “GOLDIEE” and “GOLDEY” were visually and phonetically similar, creating a likelihood of confusion and posing a threat to the Plaintiff’s brand. Accordingly, it granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using “GOLDEY” or any other deceptively similar mark and further directed the Defendant to pay a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs for failing to appear and co-operate in the proceedings.
1. Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v. Rama Biswas, CS (DJ) 525/2021
TRADEMARK
DABUR CHALLENGES PATANJALI OVER “DHOKA” CLAIM
Dabur India Limited (Plaintiff) filed a plea for interim injunction before the Delhi HC against Patanjali Ayurved Limited (Respondent), alleging that the Defendant’s advertisement for its Chyawanprash unfairly targeted other brands, calling them a “Fraud”. Plaintiff argued that the ad used the word “dhoka” (fraud) to describe the competing Chyawanprash products, which amounts to negative publicity and disparagement of the rival brands.
The Delhi HC questioned Patanjali’s use of the word “dhoka”, stating that while a company may promote its own product, it cannot label competitors’ products as “fraud.” As a result, the court temporarily restrained Patanjali from broadcasting or publishing the advertisement until the next hearing.
1. Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., C.S. (COMM) No. 1182 of 2025
COPYRIGHT
GERMAN COURT RULES AGAINST OPENAI
Germany’s music rights society GEMA (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against OpenAI (Defendant) in a Munich regional court, claiming that ChatGPT illegally used copyrighted song lyrics to train their language learning models without obtaining prior consent from the artists. GEMA argued that the Defendant “harvested” the protected lyrics to improve its language model. Defendant, on the other hand, contended that its models does not store or copy exact songs but only learns general patterns, and that any resulted lyrics shown by the system are generated by user prompts and are not copied.
The Munich court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff holding that ChatGPT’s use of song lyrics in its training process amounted to copyright infringement. The court further ruled that the Defendant is responsible for how the model was trained and for any copyrighted consequences and not the users. As a result, the Defendant was ordered to pay damages for using the lyrics without a valid license.
1.GEMA (the German Music Rights Society) v. OpenAI, Munich Regional Court, 42 O 14139/24
PATENT
PATENT CLASH BETWEEN NOKIA AND WARNER BROS
Nokia Technologies Oy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Delaware against Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Defendant) alleging that Warner’s streaming platforms infringe 13 of its video-streaming technology patents used for compressing videos for high-definition streaming. Plaintiff states it has tried to sign a licensing agreement with Warner since 2023 but the parties failed to reach an agreement.
The Plaintiff seeks undisclosed monetary damages and court directions requiring Defendant to obtain a license for the use of its patented streaming technology. The court has yet to issue a decision.
1.Nokia Technologies Oy v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:25-cv-01337
PATENT
PICTIVA WINS $191.4 MILLION VERDICT AGAINST SAMSUNG
Pictiva Displays (Plaintiff) filed a patent infringement suit before the Texas Federal Court against Samsung Electronics (Defendant) for infringing two of their patents. The Plaintiff, a subsidiary of Key Patent Innovations, alleged that the Defendant had been using their organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology to enhance the resolution, brightness, and power efficiency of OLED displays in various devices, including smartphones, televisions, computers. The Defendant denied the allegations and claimed that the patents were invalid, and filed a petition with the USPTO to invalidate the patents. The court held that the Defendant had infringed the Plaintiff’s rights and ordered it to pay damages of $191.4 million to the Plaintiff. The Defendant stated that they intend to file an appeal against the verdict.
1.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:23-cv-495
