This week’s trademark updates are as follows:
Kashmir seeks to add more products to its GI list
Kashmir seeks to obtain the GI tag for five of its crafts: Kashmir Namda, Wagguv, Shikara, Gabba and Kashmir Willow Bat. The Director of the Handicrafts & Handloom Kashmir had an extensive discussion with the authorities of Intellectual Property India, Chennai and requested them to accelerate the process of registration, “The dossier for registration of these crafts has already been submitted to the Intellectual Property India, Chennai, which is the apex level organization for the registration and better protection of geographical indications relating to goods in India,” the Directorate of Information and Public Relations stated.
Delhi High Court rejects Sun Pharma’s plea against Hetero alleging trademark infringement of cancer drug ‘Letroz’
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Sun Pharma against Hetero Healthcare alleging infringement of its trademark ‘Letroz’, a generic drug used in the second line treatment of advanced breast cancer. The Court stated that , “when the name is derived or coined from the word of the principal ingredient being used in the manufacture of the drug, no distinctiveness or exclusiveness can be claimed by the manufacturer.” Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan supported the Commercial Court’s verdict, noting that Sun Pharma’s mark was nothing more than the first six letters of the substance, ‘Letrozole’, which is the international non-proprietary name (INN) of a salt.
Delhi High Court expresses concern over alarming rise in cases of trademark infringement by anonymous persons
The Delhi High Court recently expressed its concern over the alarming rise in trademark infringement cases by anonymous persons on the internet. A single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh voiced her concerns and stated that, “Matters in which unknown persons are infringing and using well-known marks, to the detriment of the holder of the mark, are mushrooming at an alarming rate.” The statement was made as part of a lawsuit brought by the interior designing platform “Livspace” against a website called “www.livspace-reviews.com” that was set up by anonymous users where various negative and defamatory evaluations of the business were posted. Allegations were made that the Plaintiff’s website served as the inspiration for the whole look and feel of the Defendant’s fake website. The Court observed that the material of the contested website was highly derogatory of the Plaintiffs and may have a detrimental effect on their operations. In order to prevent further use of the rogue website, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction and ordered the domain name to be banned until the next hearing date. It further mandated that the Cyber Crime Unit, Special Cell of the Delhi Police, conduct a thorough inquiry into the ownership and individuals responsible for maintaining the aforementioned website.
Delhi High Court restrains Jamshedpur restaurant from using ‘SOCIAL’ trademark
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim order in favor of co-working café company Social, preventing a Jamshedpur eatery called ‘Social 75′ from utilizing its registered trademark. It was argued that the defendant had purposefully utilized the number ’75’ as a suffix to the trademark ‘SOCIAL,’ and that the objective was to suggest to the public that the plaintiff had launched its 75th ‘SOCIAL’ in the city of Jamshedpur. Furthermore, it was alleged that the defendant’s use of a deceptively similar trademark was intended to mislead the general public into thinking that the plaintiff was the source of these goods. The Court reasoned that if the injunction was not granted, the plaintiff’s network of restaurants and cafés would suffer irreparable loss, and consequently prevented the operators of the Jamshedpur location from utilizing the ‘Social’ brand until the next date of hearing. Furthermore, the Court ordered the owners of ‘Social 75’ and everyone involved with it to erase any references to the ‘Social’ trademark from third-party websites where its goods or services were sold, marketed, or advertised. “Plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within a period of ten days from today,” the Court noted. The Court also issued notice and summons to the defendants and required them to produce an affidavit of admission or rejection of the plaintiff’s materials.
Authored by Lavanya Anand (Associate, BananaIP Counsels) and Rohan Koshy Cherian (Intern).
This post is brought to you by BananaIP Counsels’ Trademarks and Copyright Attorneys
About BananaIP Counsels’ Trademarks and Copyright Attorneys
This Weekly Trademark Updates Bulletin is brought to you by the Trademarks and Copyright Division of BananaIP Counsels, a Top IP Firm in India. Led by Sanjeeth Hegde, BananaIP Counsels’ trademark and copyright attorneys are among the leading experts in the field. If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please write to [email protected] with the subject: Weekly Trademark Update.
The weekly trademark news initiative is a part of their pro bono work and is aimed at spreading trademark awareness. You are free to share the news with appropriate attribution and backlink to the source.
