Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

On June 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court granted Glenmark an interim injunction against Gleck Pharma in a trademark dispute over “ZITA-MET” and “XIGAMET”. The court found that the similarities between the trademarks could confuse consumers, leading to potential health risks, and applied strict standards to prevent such confusion.

Glaxo’s BETNESOL vs Zee’s BETNEVIN : Who do you BET on?

The Delhi High Court enforced a decree favoring Glaxo Group Limited against Mr. Rajiv Mukul, restraining the use of ‘BETNEVIN’ due to trademark infringement of ‘BETNESOL’. The Court upheld that infringement determination could be made in an execution petition to enforce the decree of injunction.

Inventive Step Assessment: To be Anchored in Knowledge of a Person with Ordinary Skill on the Priority Date

The Delhi High Court overturned the patent refusal for Alimentary Health’s probiotic formulation, emphasizing the need for an objective analysis of inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970. The Court criticized the Patent Office’s decision and highlighted the importance of avoiding hindsight bias in evaluating patent applications.

Pidilite Contains Astral from infringing its Container Design

On June 13, 2024, the High Court of Bombay granted Pidilite Industries Limited an interim injunction against Astral Limited, protecting its registered container design. The Court found Astral’s design to be deceptively similar and upheld the novelty and distinctiveness of Pidilite’s design.

Court halts release of film exploiting Karan Johar’s celebrity status

On June 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Karan Johar, restraining Indiapride Advisory Pvt Ltd. from using his name and attributes in their film’s title, citing unlawful exploitation of his celebrity status and potential public confusion.

Crocs croaks out its clone! Court Cancels ‘Crocksclub’ trademark

Crocs Inc. successfully filed a rectification petition to remove the trademark CROCKSCLUB, securing sole rights to the CROCS trademark in India. The court ruled in favor of Crocs Inc., highlighting the likelihood of confusion and risk of association with CROCS goods.

Emami vs Unilever : Court says No “Glow” to Unilever’s “Handsome”

The Calcutta High Court ruled that while Emami could not establish trademark infringement, it succeeded in its passing off claim against Unilever’s ‘Glow and Handsome’. The court ordered Unilever to cease using the mark within a month, upholding Emami’s rights and protecting its brand reputation.

Let’s see who gets the ‘Zee’! Prem Biyani vs Zee Entertainment

The Madras High Court overturned the Trade Marks Registry’s decision to reject Prem Biyani’s trademark application for the mark “Zee” under Class 5, which was opposed by Zee Entertainment. The Court noted that Zee Entertainment’s mark, although well-known, was not registered under Class 5 and did not appear in isolation. The case has been remanded to the Trade Marks Registry for reconsideration.

Warner Bros. dries up the Doodstream.com!

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court ordered Doodstream.com to remove infringing content related to Warner Bros. and comply with Indian laws. The court emphasized the platform’s role in incentivizing piracy and the necessity for stricter compliance measures.

Boehringer secures Patent Injunction for its Diabetes Drug – Empagliflozin

On May 30, 2024, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted an interim injunction to Boehringer Ingelheim, restraining Eris Lifesciences from manufacturing, selling, or marketing Empagliflozin tablets due to patent infringement. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining scientific integrity and upheld the validity of Boehringer’s patent.