Copyright Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rites Society vs. Sanjay Dalia wherein the jurisdiction for institution of suits was clarified by the Supreme Court after referring to Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court inter alia held that a suit can be filed at a place where the plaintiff has a principal place of office and not a subordinate office. September 20, 2020September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks While reiterating that registration of assignment is mandatory in terms of Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act (‘Trademarks Act’), the Court however observed that when the plaintiff had admittedly applied for recording the assignment at the earliest and there was a huge delay on the part of the Trade Marks Registry, this delay could not prejudice the plaintiff, which had every right to protect its right in the concerned trademark. The Court further held that there was no bar in law for a partner initiating litigation to protect the intellectual property rights of the partnership firm. September 20, 2020September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Court held that an abbreviation of descriptive words cannot be used as a trademark if it is a generic term with generic connotations, unless the abbreviation itself could be demonstrated to have acquired a secondary meaning. September 20, 2020September 20, 2020 Indian IPR
Intermediary The standard of having “conspired or abetted or aided or induced” requires the intermediary to be an “active participant” in the infringement. HELD While Section 79 of the IT Act is to protect genuine intermediaries, it cannot be abused by extending such protection to those persons who are not intermediaries and are active participants in the unlawful act. September 1, 2020September 1, 2020 Indian IPR
Intermediary DB : Ss 79 and 81 of the I T Act and S. 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act have to be read harmoniously. It is held that proviso to S 81 does not preclude the affirmative defence of safe harbor for an intermediary in case of copyright actions. (b) Section 51(a)(ii), in the case of internet intermediaries contemplates actual knowledge and not general awareness. Additionally, to impose liability on an intermediary, conditions under Section 79 of the IT Act have to be fulfilled. September 1, 2020September 1, 2020 Indian IPR
Copyright Court agreed to the defendant’s request to grant them (Ropso.com content sharing site) two days time to sit with the plaintiff and ensure legal compliances September 1, 2020September 1, 2020 Indian IPR
Copyright LOOTCASE Vs Tukkaa Fitt’s movies, last day injunction sought HELD that the two movies are only similar so far as they revolve around a stolen bag full of money, but since no copyright subsists over themes, plots and ideas, there is no infringement. August 30, 2020August 30, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks HELD that use of the word ‘Luxuria’ infringes upon the trademark ‘Luxura’ for comfort buses August 30, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Trade Marks Act 1999 HELD ‘reputation’ to mean a mark ‘known by a significant part of the public concerned by the products or services covered by that trade mark.’ that of well-known trademarks under Section 2(1)(zg).If anything, this appears to be an even higher standard so far as it requires the mark to be known by people ‘concerned with it’, as opposed to those who ‘use it’ per Section 2(1)(zg) August 30, 2020 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Concept of concept of dilution in Section 29 (4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. HELD Section 29 (4) is an exception to the general scheme of the Act which requires the “likelihood of confusion” approach. ‘Dilution’ under the Section does not require a finding of confusion. August 30, 2020August 30, 2020 Indian IPR
