Apex Court in case of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. had observed that, accrual of cause of action was a sine qua non for suit to be filed and cause of action was a bundle of facts which required to be proved to enable Court to grant relief to Plaintiff. Cause of action, not only referred to infringement but also material facts on which rights were founded. It was requirement of law that, it had to be independently decided in each case by concerned Court as to whether cause of action arose wholly or in part thereby conferring jurisdiction of Court. if cause of action arose wholly or in part in a place where Plaintiff was residing or having its principal office/carried on business or personally worked for gain, suit could be filed at such a place. That Plaintiff could also institute suit at a place where he was residing, carrying on business or personally worked for gain de hors
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Apex Court in case of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. had observed that, accrual of cause of action was a sine qua non for suit to be filed and cause of action was a bundle of facts which required to be proved to enable Court to grant relief to Plaintiff. Cause of action, not only referred to infringement but also material facts on which rights were founded. It was requirement of law that, it had to be independently decided in each case by concerned Court as to whether cause of action arose wholly or in part thereby conferring jurisdiction of Court. if cause of action arose wholly or in part in a place where Plaintiff was residing or having its principal office/carried on business or personally worked for gain, suit could be filed at such a place. That Plaintiff could also institute suit at a place where he was residing, carrying on business or personally worked for gain de hors

indianipr0
Read More
A person who thus became first owner of Copyright for entire work, had been conferred with a statutory right for a period of 60 years over cinematograph film. This statutory right could not be taken away by a performer in cinematograph film by virtue of an agreement. Clause 9 in agreement did not curtail Copyright of Respondent. Therefore, Respondent was entitled to exploit work for entire term prescribed under Section 26 of Act, and was not restricted for a period of one year by agreement.
COPYRIGHTS

A person who thus became first owner of Copyright for entire work, had been conferred with a statutory right for a period of 60 years over cinematograph film. This statutory right could not be taken away by a performer in cinematograph film by virtue of an agreement. Clause 9 in agreement did not curtail Copyright of Respondent. Therefore, Respondent was entitled to exploit work for entire term prescribed under Section 26 of Act, and was not restricted for a period of one year by agreement.

indianipr0
Read More
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2(c), 14, 15 – Trademark – Copyright – Infringement – Passing off – Contempt – Punishment – Sale of counterfeit products bearing plaintiff’s registered trade mark and logo – Recovery of infringing goods from the premises of the defendants – this Court is of the opinion that a contemnor is not in a position of an accused and contempt proceedings are separate and distinct from criminal proceedings. In a criminal trial where a person is accused of an offence, there is a Public Prosecutor who prosecutes the case on behalf of the prosecution against the accused, but in contempt proceedings the Court is both the accuser as well as the Judge of the accusation,  However, as the respondent no.2/ defendant no.2 has admittedly made false statements under oath, this Court is of the view that it strikes a blow at the rule of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the respondent no.2/ defendant no.2 is committed to one month’s simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.  
COPYRIGHTS

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2(c), 14, 15 – Trademark – Copyright – Infringement – Passing off – Contempt – Punishment – Sale of counterfeit products bearing plaintiff’s registered trade mark and logo – Recovery of infringing goods from the premises of the defendants – this Court is of the opinion that a contemnor is not in a position of an accused and contempt proceedings are separate and distinct from criminal proceedings. In a criminal trial where a person is accused of an offence, there is a Public Prosecutor who prosecutes the case on behalf of the prosecution against the accused, but in contempt proceedings the Court is both the accuser as well as the Judge of the accusation,  However, as the respondent no.2/ defendant no.2 has admittedly made false statements under oath, this Court is of the view that it strikes a blow at the rule of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the respondent no.2/ defendant no.2 is committed to one month’s simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.  

indianipr0
Read More
Defendants were using the plaintiff’s mark ‘NJAU’ and its product packaging to sell counterfeit products with a view to trade upon and benefit from the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s mark and pass off its services as that of the plaintiff’s. It is further settled law that application of the mark by the defendants to the goods exported by them constitutes use of the mark by them in India. Consequently, the allegation that the mark ‘NJAU’ and ‘NJAU’ label used by defendant amounts to infringement of plaintiff’s copyright and passes off as plaintiff’s product is true and correct. The use of the plaintiff’s mark by the defendants is bound to cause incalculable losses, harm and injury to the plaintiff and immense public harm.
COPYRIGHTS

Defendants were using the plaintiff’s mark ‘NJAU’ and its product packaging to sell counterfeit products with a view to trade upon and benefit from the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s mark and pass off its services as that of the plaintiff’s. It is further settled law that application of the mark by the defendants to the goods exported by them constitutes use of the mark by them in India. Consequently, the allegation that the mark ‘NJAU’ and ‘NJAU’ label used by defendant amounts to infringement of plaintiff’s copyright and passes off as plaintiff’s product is true and correct. The use of the plaintiff’s mark by the defendants is bound to cause incalculable losses, harm and injury to the plaintiff and immense public harm.

indianipr0
Read More
Defendant has infringed the sound recordings, cinematograph films and underlying literary and musical works belonging to plaintiff’s repertoire of songs – A bare perusal of the screenshot of the infringing recording (Ex. PW-2/3) and the cue sheet shows that the defendant has amongst others infringed the sound recordings, cinematograph films and underlying literary and musical works belonging to plaintiff‟s repertoire of songs „IkGoli Mere Seena Cheer Gayi‟ from the film „Born This Way‟, the song Íshq Mein Ruswa‟ from the film „Dangerous Ishq‟, the song „Ring Ring‟ from the film „Mr. Joe B Carvalho‟. As the defendant has broadcast the plaintiff‟s video songs without any license, this Court is further of the opinion that defendant has infringed the plaintiff‟s rights under Sections 14(a)(iii), 14a(iv), 14(d)(iii) and 14(e)(iii) read withSection 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
COPYRIGHTS

Defendant has infringed the sound recordings, cinematograph films and underlying literary and musical works belonging to plaintiff’s repertoire of songs – A bare perusal of the screenshot of the infringing recording (Ex. PW-2/3) and the cue sheet shows that the defendant has amongst others infringed the sound recordings, cinematograph films and underlying literary and musical works belonging to plaintiff‟s repertoire of songs „IkGoli Mere Seena Cheer Gayi‟ from the film „Born This Way‟, the song Íshq Mein Ruswa‟ from the film „Dangerous Ishq‟, the song „Ring Ring‟ from the film „Mr. Joe B Carvalho‟. As the defendant has broadcast the plaintiff‟s video songs without any license, this Court is further of the opinion that defendant has infringed the plaintiff‟s rights under Sections 14(a)(iii), 14a(iv), 14(d)(iii) and 14(e)(iii) read withSection 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

indianipr0
Read More
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rule 1, 2 – Trademark – Identical mark – Infringement – Injunction, granted the plaintiff has been able to prove the defendants adoption and using of trademark, trade dress, deceptively similar domain name, unequivocally amounts to the infringement of the plaintiffs registered domain name, trademark, trade dress etc and amounts to passing of their goods and business as this is without authorization/affiliation by the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs is entitle to a decree for reliefs prayed
TRADEMARKS

Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rule 1, 2 – Trademark – Identical mark – Infringement – Injunction, granted the plaintiff has been able to prove the defendants adoption and using of trademark, trade dress, deceptively similar domain name, unequivocally amounts to the infringement of the plaintiffs registered domain name, trademark, trade dress etc and amounts to passing of their goods and business as this is without authorization/affiliation by the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs is entitle to a decree for reliefs prayed

indianipr0
Read More
The defendants as well as unidentified persons are restrained at Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi under John Doe order and their vendors, sellers, agents, servants, representatives and employees or any one claiming under them, directly or indirectly, from in any manner selling/purchasing/distributing the Plaintiffs ‘Amway products’ unauthorizedly and illegally through any wholesale/retail shops till the next date of hearing.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The defendants as well as unidentified persons are restrained at Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi under John Doe order and their vendors, sellers, agents, servants, representatives and employees or any one claiming under them, directly or indirectly, from in any manner selling/purchasing/distributing the Plaintiffs ‘Amway products’ unauthorizedly and illegally through any wholesale/retail shops till the next date of hearing.

indianipr0
Read More
Mark of Respondent which was registered consists not only of words or picture but mark as a whole including placement of words, picture and over all layout of mark. On comparison of two marks as a whole, prima fade, impression gathered was that, essential features of registered Trade mark of Respondent had been identically shown in mark of Appellant and that there seemed to be over all similarity in two. It was likely to create confusion and prima facie appeared to be deceptive in its similarity. Once Court prima facie came to conclusion that, Respondent-Plaintiff had been able to show over all similarity and copying of essential features of registered Trade mark, irreparable loss or injury in absence of an order of temporary injunction had to be presumed.
TRADEMARKS

Mark of Respondent which was registered consists not only of words or picture but mark as a whole including placement of words, picture and over all layout of mark. On comparison of two marks as a whole, prima fade, impression gathered was that, essential features of registered Trade mark of Respondent had been identically shown in mark of Appellant and that there seemed to be over all similarity in two. It was likely to create confusion and prima facie appeared to be deceptive in its similarity. Once Court prima facie came to conclusion that, Respondent-Plaintiff had been able to show over all similarity and copying of essential features of registered Trade mark, irreparable loss or injury in absence of an order of temporary injunction had to be presumed.

indianipr0
Read More