TRADEMARK
PATANJALI DIRECTED TO DEPOSIT RS 50 LAKH FOR BREACH OF ORDER
On 30th August 2023, the Bombay HC issued an interim order in a trademark infringement suit, filed by Mangalam Organics Ltd. against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. (hereinafter referred to "Defendant") restraining Patanjali from selling or advertising camphor products. Patanjali had breached the earlier injunction order and it admitted that they were supplying camphor products subsequent to the injunction order and had sold camphor products for Rs 49.57 lakh post the injunction order. In June 2024, Patanjali issued a public apology, however, despite the same, Patanjali continued with the sale of the product.
Thus, for persistent breach of the Injunction Order, Patanjali was directed to deposit Rs 50 lakh in Court within a week. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 19 July 2024.
(1) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/trademark-infringement-patanjali-asked-to-deposit-rs-50-lakh-for-breach-of-hc-order/articleshow/111625966.cms?from=mdr
TRADEMARK
DELHI HC REFERS TO BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 IN TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE
Electrical appliances manufacturer KG Marketing India ("Plaintiff") filed a suit against two individuals ("Defendants") seeking an injunction against the use of the mark 'SURYA'. Delhi HC referred to the recently introduced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in examining the case. The Plaintiff claimed their projects have been advertised in various newspapers, while the Defendants argued that they were the copyright owners of the 'SURYA GOLD' mark. Further, the Defendants alleged that the aforesaid newspaper advertisements were fabricated.
However, the court stated, "In these proceedings, since the application was pending when the new statutes Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were enacted, the matter would continue under the erstwhile Code itself." Thus, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) would be applicable in this matter. Hence, the court dismissed the suit and restrained Plaintiff from using the mark 'SURYA GOLD'.
Reference:
(1) https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/in-a-first-delhi-hc-refers-to-new-criminal-law-in-trademark-infringement-case-9433820/
COPYRIGHT
MADRAS HIGH COURT STAYS RE-RELEASE OF KAMAL HASSAN STARRER FILM "GUNA"
Recently, a copyright infringement lawsuit was initiated by Mr. Ghanshyam Hemdev ("Plaintiff") against the re-release of the 1991 Tamil movie "Gunaa" starring Mr. Kamal Hasan. The Plaintiff contended that he is engaged in the business of financing, production, and aggregation of copyrights for cinematographic films. He also submitted that he had acquired the entire negative rights (i.e. the right of the author to prevent others from copying his work) of 10 Tamil cinematographic films (including the rights of Gunaa movie) from one Mr. N Rathnam who held the world negative rights, vide an agreement dated 10.04.2008. The Plaintiff contends that pursuant to the agreement he was assigned all the rights pertaining to the film and additionally, he had also obtained laboratory confirmation for the film.
In June 2024, Plaintiff discovered that "Guna" movie was being re-released without his consent. Despite his request for intervention from the Film Distributors Association, the movie was re-released on July 5, 2024, using a forged agreement. Consequently, the Plaintiff filed this suit to protect his copyright rights and additionally requested the Court to temporarily restrain the defendants from exhibiting and exploiting the copyrights of the film. The court has allowed this prayer and granted an ad-interim relief in his favor.
(1) https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-stays-re-release-of-kamal-hassan-movie-gunaa-263027
COPYRIGHT
SAREGAMA INDIA LTD. INITIATES A LAWSUIT AGAINST EMAMI LIMITED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
In an interesting news, Saregama India Limited. ("Plaintiff") has initiated a lawsuit against Emami Limited ("Defendant") for unlicensed use of the song "Udi Jab Jab Zulfein" ("Impugned Song") in an advertisement for "Emami Kesh King Anti Hairfall Shampoo". The Impugned Song is from an old film "Naya Daur". The Plaintiff argued that they have been assigned all the copyright rights including musical, literary, and sound recording rights of the Impugned Song by the producer of the aforesaid film for the entire term of sixteen years. This was also established by the Indian Performing Right Society Limited ('IPRS'), a registered society for musical and literary works, vide certificate dated 09-11-2023. Plaintiff informed that Defendant had approached him for the grant of a license, however, Plaintiff reiterated its rights. Further, Plaintiff contended that the unauthorized use of the Impugned Song by Defendant infringed his copyright rights under Section 14 of the Copyright Act (i.e. the right to sell or give on commercial rent sound recordings).
Contrarily, the Defendants argued that any rights of the Plaintiff in the Impugned Song were only for sixty years beginning from 15.08.1957 when the movie was released and thus, their rights had expired. The Court directed the Defendant to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs with the Registry, clarifying that this is an interim arrangement and it will reconsider the amount after hearing both parties at the next hearing.
(1) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/07/08/delhi-hc-directs-emami-to-deposit-10-lacs-for-infringing-saregama-india-copyright-on-song-udi-jab-jab-zulfein/
COPYRIGHT
GAURAV GUPTA INITIATES LAWSUITS AGAINST NINE COUNTERFEITERS
In an interesting news, Delhi-based fashion couturier Mr. Gaurav Gupta (hereinafter referred to "Complainant") has filed nine separate cases against alleged counterfeiters, based across New Delhi, Mumbai, and Punjab, at the Delhi High Court. The Complainant states that the counterfeiters copied their signature sculpting techniques, misleading customers into thinking they were purchasing his designs. The Plaintiff has claimed Rs 2 crore in damages from each case and aims to obtain restraining orders against all nine defendants.
The Delhi High Court acknowledged the rights of the Plaintiff. Further, it has forbidden the defendants from manufacturing counterfeit clothing and has ordered them to destroy all counterfeit products which have already been made while also removing all online content relating to them.
(1) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/fashion-/-cosmetics-/-jewellery/designer-gaurav-gupta-takes-on-fashion-fakes/articleshow/111614279.cms
PATENT
DELHI HC ISSUES INTERIM INJUNCTION V/S ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES
Recently, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche ("Plaintiff") filed a patent infringement suit against Zydus and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories ("Defendants") pertaining to the breast cancer drug Sigrima, a biosimilar (i.e. biologic medical product that is almost an identical copy of an original product) of the Plaintiff's Perjeta (Pertuzumab). The Defendants informed the Court that its drug had received "conditional" approval on April 4 and marketing permission from the National Institute of Biologicals on June 27. However, the court objected to the launch of the drug lis pendens and criticized the Defendant for not providing "timely updates" about significant regulatory developments. Justice Sanjeev Narula stated, "The timing of the product's launch suggests a strategic move by the defendant (Zydus) to establish a market presence before any potential judicial restrictions could be imposed."
Consequently, the Delhi HC granted an interim injunction, preventing the Defendants from selling its breast cancer drug until all legal and regulatory concerns are conclusively resolved.
(1) http://www.cnbctv18.com/market/delhi-high-court-temporarily-bars-zydus-lifesciences-from-selling-breast-cancer-drug-19441700.htm
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED 
