Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki: When MOTION met TRANSFORMOTION, Similarity missed the bus!

Promotional graphic for Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki featuring a red-and-blue transforming robot on the left and the words “AUTOBOTS! TRANSFORM...” in bold white and orange text on a muted grey background.

In the case of Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., Volkswagen opposed Maruti Suzuki’s application for TRANSFORMOTION in Class 12 on the ground that it was too close to Volkswagen’s earlier mark 4MOTION. The court examined the marks in the setting in which they were used, noted that one was tied to a vehicle technology and the other to an advertising campaign, and concluded that the two marks did not create deceptive similarity.

Images Copyright and AI Getty Vs. Stable Diffusion

In the case of Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd, Getty Images sued Stability AI, the developer of the Stable Diffusion generative AI model, alleging that the system had been trained on millions of copyrighted photographs from Getty Images’ websites. Getty Images argued that both the outputs generated by the AI system and the AI model itself infringed copyright. During the proceedings, Getty Images abandoned the claim relating to infringing outputs after the prompts used to generate those outputs were blocked. The High Court then examined whether the Stable Diffusion model itself could constitute an infringing copy and held that the model does not contain or store copies of Getty Images’ photographs and therefore cannot qualify as an infringing copy under UK copyright law.

Mere Admixture or True Innovation? Crystal Crop’s Herbicidal Composition Fails the Synergy Test

A hand writing the word “SYNERGY” above the equation “1 + 1 > 2” in red marker, illustrating the concept that combined elements can produce a greater effect than their individual contributions.

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed a simple patent lesson: mixing known compounds will not do unless the mix delivers something unexpectedly better. In Crystal Crop, the claimed herbicidal composition failed that test.

When Chatbots Sing Songs AI Outputs and Copyright Liability

In the case of GEMA v OpenAI entities operating ChatGPT, the collecting society GEMA sued the operators of a generative AI chatbot for reproducing protected song lyrics through chatbot outputs. The court examined chatbot responses generated after simple prompts asking for song lyrics and compared them with the original lyrics represented by GEMA. The court held that the operators are liable for copyright infringement arising from such outputs, ordered them to refrain from reproducing the lyrics through the chatbot, directed them to disclose the extent of the infringing acts and revenue earned from them, and held them liable to compensate damages.

Amendment of claims at Appellate Stage under section 59 of the Patents Act

Banner graphic displaying the text “Amendment of Claims at Appellate Stage” with a central icon representing a heat exchanger, on a blue and tan background.

In the case of Daikin Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Indian Patent Office refused Daikin’s patent application relating to a shell and plate heat exchanger on the ground of lack of novelty over a prior art document. During the appeal before the High Court, Daikin sought permission to amend claim 1 by incorporating additional limitations already disclosed in the specification. The court examined whether such an amendment could be permitted at the appellate stage under Section 59 of the Patents Act.

Can Anyone Own the “Forest”? Delhi High Court Applies Anti Dissection Rule in Forest Essentials case

Banner image of a dense forest with sunlight filtering through tall trees and a path running through it, featuring the text “Who owns the FOREST?” in a green label.

The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant an interim injunction in the dispute between Forest Essentials and Baby Forest Ayurveda. The court held that “BABY FOREST” was not deceptively similar to “FOREST ESSENTIALS,” and that the word **“FOREST,” being a dictionary word, could not be monopolised without strong evidence of secondary meaning. Applying the anti dissection rule, the court concluded that the marks must be assessed as a whole and declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s refusal of interim relief.

Dead Company Dead Mark: Trademark cannot survive a Non Existent Owner or unrecorded trademark assignment

Gravestone in a green field engraved with “Here lies a trademark that died when the company died,” symbolizing a struck-off company and the legal issue of an unrecorded trademark assignment in trademark law.

In the case of Tibbs Food Private Limited vs D Lite Frankies and Foods Private Limited, the petitioner sought removal of a trademark registered for “D Lite Frankies and Foods Private Limited.” During the proceedings it came to light that the registered proprietor company had already been struck off, and the trademark had allegedly been assigned to an individual years earlier. The court had to decide whether the registration could continue in the name of a non existent company and what effect the unrecorded assignment would have.

First Owner of Copyright in Film Music: Delhi HC in Saregama v Ilaiyaraja

Film reel and musical notes illustrating film music rights.

Section 17(b) and 17(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was applied by the Delhi High Court to treat the producer as the first owner of copyright in film works, absent an agreement to the contrary. Interim restraint was granted against unauthorised licensing of the works.

Mist in the Machine, Haze in the Reasoning: Court Reiterates Mandatory Five-Step Test for Inventive Step

A white air humidifier releasing mist in a green room with a blurred background, overlaid with the title “Mist in the Machine, Haze in the Reasoning” in bold text.

In the case of Energeo Works India Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Patent Office refused a patent application relating to an air cooling system that used a mist of water to pre cool ambient air entering an air cooled chiller assembly. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step in view of two prior art documents and common general knowledge. The applicant challenged the refusal on the ground that the order was unreasoned and that the Controller had not applied the correct legal test for obviousness.

Why Canva’s “Present and Record” Feature Is Still Restricted in India?

Illustration of a woman using Canva on a laptop with a lock featuring the Indian flag over the screen and the headline “Canva’s Missing Feature in India!”, symbolizing the Present and Record feature being blocked in India.

Why Canva’s “Present and Record” feature is still restricted in India and how the interim injunction in the RxPrism patent dispute continues to operate.