The challenge made by the appellant before the High Court insofar as the Notification dated 27th December, 2002 is concerned was founded on a claim of copyright in the FRIENDS application software. The said claim, ex facie, is not tenable in the light of the provisions contained in Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act and the admitted/pleaded case of the appellant in the writ petition to the effect that it was entrusted by Microsoft to develop the software for which it received due consideration from Microsoft. If that be so, on the appellant’s own pleadings in the writ petition, it would not be entitled to claim copyright in the FRIENDS application software under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act.
COPYRIGHTS
Having regard to the various contentions raised by the parties, the High Court rightly held that subject to the outcome of the suit, the respondent can pursue their application for registration of the device. Both parties have inter alia raised various contentions. Since the suit and the respondent’s application for registration of its label with the marks thereon under Class-30 is pending, we are not inclined to go into the merits of those contentions.
TRADEMARKS
interim order already in force should continue during the pendency of the suit. The balance of convenience has been found in favour of the plaintiff owing to the use by the plaintiff of the mark, of which infringement/passing off is averred, being much prior to that of the defendants, with the defendants having commenced use barely eight months prior to the grant of the ex-parte injunction. However, it is made clear that in the event of the plaintiff failing in the suit, the plaintiff shall be required to restitute to the defendant No.2 the loss, if any suffered by the defendant No.2 owing to the interim injunction.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29 Trademark `BRAVIA’   Adoption of mark Phonetically similar Trademark `FRAVIA’   by the defendants is deceptively and phonetically similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark `BRAVIA’ Plaintiff has been continuously using the mark `BRAVIA’.   Trade mark BRAVIA and FRAVIA are phonetically and  similar Letters `b’ and `f’ are written in running cursive writing, which is how prescriptions are usually written Marks are not just deceptively similar but are in fact identical.
TRADEMARKS
Section 124 of Act, is applicable only to suits for stay of infringement till final decision of pending rectifications. Having recourse to Section 151 of CPC, to stay proceedings in a suit for ‘passing off’, was uncalled for as Section 124 of Act, was very specific and made it clear that it was applicable only to suits for infringement.  Therefore suit for infringement of Trade mark,  stayed till final decision of pending rectification; suit filed by Plaintiff for ‘passing off’, however, will continue and was to be decided on its own merit.
TRADEMARKS
Compilation of Customer Database — This Court (Delhi H C) cannot pass such unenforceable order, the meaning whereof is not clear. It cannot be known, neither to the Court nor to the defendant as to what the defendant is injuncted from doing. On facts as pleaded in plaint it appeared that there can be no confidentiality about such a list… the list of customers/clients of the plaintiff, carrying on business in the field of logistic and freight forwarding, can only comprise of businesses/industry requiring carriage of goods and material and none else. Names and contact addresses of such businesses are easily available in public domain. Any competitor of the plaintiff worth its salt would also know of such businesses/industry and be free to market his services to them, even if presently employing the service of the plaintiff.
COPYRIGHTS