Copyright Jugjugg Jeeyo in a suit claiming copyright infringement – Injunction application to stay release of movies rejected by PO Commercial Court Ranchi June 26, 2022 Indian IPR
Design HAVELLS vs PANASONIC FANS HELD Panasonic, restrained from manufacturing, marketing and selling ceiling fans belonging to its ‘Venice Prime’ series of fans as it was found to be deceptively similar to those made by Indian electrical equipment company, Havell’s, under its ‘Enticer Art-NS Stone’ series June 3, 2022 Indian IPR
Infringement - Trade Mark Registered trademark “KEI” HELD “interlocutory injunction, restraining the defendants, or their agents, sister concerns or any entity incorporated by the Defendants or anyone acting for and on their behalf as the case maybe, from using the impugned mark , in relation to any electrical goods or instruments, including electrical fans, room coolers, geysers, electric heating apparatus etc., or any allied or similar goods May 19, 2022 Indian IPR
Infringement - Trade Mark Injunction granted – Plaintiff’s mark ‘ATLANTIS’, owing to the unique nature of the resorts which are run by it, have prima facie, gained enormous global reputation, especially in the Indian subcontinent.” May 18, 2022 Indian IPR
Copyright Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against News Nation, Suspects Defence Of ‘Fair Use’ in an non exclusive agreement termination case filed by Shemaroo Films’ RE Copyright Infringement Suit April 28, 2022April 28, 2022 Indian IPR
Injunction Infringement of trade mark and passing off – Held, Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of adinterim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the respondent-plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the respondentplaintiff was entitled for grant of adinterim injunction or not March 18, 2022 Indian IPR
Trade Marks HELD the mark „super‟ is devoid of any distinctive character and not capable of distinguishing the goods of the plaintiff. Therefore, even if the plaintiff has obtained registration in respect of the marks „SUPER CUTESTERS‟, „SUPER CUTES‟ and „SUPER CUTEZ‟, it would not give him exclusive right over the use of the word „SUPER‟. March 3, 2022 Indian IPR
Passing Off “User of a similar word by a competitor coupled with dishonest intention and bad faith would suffice to restrain such user and misuser, to do equitable justice to the plaintiff,” February 1, 2022 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Trade Marks Act, 1999 – 29 and 30 – Infringement of the trade mark – Permanent injunction – When the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public January 23, 2022 Indian IPR
Injunction Where an attempt to confuse or deceive is discernible, the court leans in favour of finding the attempt to have been successful, rather than a failure. Dishonesty, in cases of intellectual property infringement, imperils the case of a defendant to no insubstantial extent. HELD connoisseur of the plaintiff’s alcoholic “BREEZER” would not partake of the defendants’ non-alcoholic “FREEZ mix”. The triple identity test, of similarity of marks, similarity of products and availability through common sources, is also, therefore, satisfied . Defendant restrained November 13, 2021 Indian IPR
