TV Today Network Vs News Laundry Media

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 29.07.2022
CASE: CS(Comm) 551 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Hon'ble Justice Asha Menon
CASE TITLE: TV Today Network Vs News Laundry Media

The Plaintiff namely INDIA TODAY GROUP is a well known Media News Company and owner and proprietor of Trademark AAJ TAK since the year 2009. It was the claim of Plaintiff that in the year 2021, the Plaintiff launched a new channel named „Good News Today‟ or „GNT‟, which was a 24x7 Hindi News Channel and was meant to broadcast true stories that foster goodwill and enrich the lives of the audiences.

The subject matter suit was filed by the Plaintiff against the ground inter alia that the same has not only published the copyrighted video contents of the Plaintiff thereby making themselves guilty for copyright infringement but also has lowered the goodwill of plaintiff there by guilty of defamation also.

The Hon'ble Court rejected the argument of the Defendant that the subject matter suit is not a commercial dispute by making reference to Section 2(1)(c) of commercial court Act which says that all disputes arising of various clauses mentioned therein, are commercial disputes.

The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to reject this argument of the Defendant that their activities were protected under right to comment. The Court observed further that use of words by defendants such as, “shit standards”, “shit playing” on the channel, “shit reporters”, “shit show”, would show, that programmes/shows of the plaintiff are bad. There by their activities are not covered under the right of fair criticism , but rather they are defaming the Plaintiff.

The Hon'ble Court also found the Defendant prima facie guilty of infringement of copyright and defamation, however injunction in favour of the Plaintiff was declined as balance of convenience was titled in favour of the Defendant.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
9990389539

Free Elective Network Private Limited Vs Matrimony.com. Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 15.07.2022
CASE: Civil Suit(Comm.Div) No.122 of 2021 and O.A.Nos.826 & 828 of 2021 and A.No.442 of 2022
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Judicature at Madras
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Hon'ble Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy
CASE TITLE: FreeElective Network Private Limited Vs Matrimony.com. Ltd.

The Plaintiff have device registration for the Trademark JODI 365. The Plaintiff filed subject matter Suit on the basis of proprietary right in the Trademark JODI 365 since the year 2009 for its flagship matchmaking platform and complementary wedding planning market network, respectively.

The Suit was filed against the Defendant's
when in the month of October 2021, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant had launched a mobile app under the name “Jodii”.

The Plaintiff's Trademark was JODI 365 device composite Trademark. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to decline any relief pertaining to the infringement on the basis of JODI 365 composite trademark as from the Record, it was apparent that the non distinctive element of the composite Device Trademark failed to achieve any distinctiveness.

The Hon'ble Court was also pleased to decline any relief pertaining to passing off on the ground that competing trademark/trade dress were in question were not similar and there was no any possibility of confusion and deception.

In view of the above relief pertaining to infringement and passing off both were declined to the Plaintiff.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
9990389539

Simpson and Company Limited Vs Rythm Agrawal

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 15.07.2022
CASE:O.S.A.(CAD) No.122 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.19646 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Judicature at Madras
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Hon'ble Justice M Duraiswamy and Sunder Mohan
CASE TITLE: Simpson and Company Limited Vs Rythm Agrawal

The Appellant was the Defendant and Respondent was the Plaintiff in the matter.

After conclusion of the trial, when the matter was listed for final argument, the Appellant filed application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint.

The Appellant based their argument on the basis of Judgement namely (2015) 10 SCC 161 (Indian Performing Rights Society Limited vs Sanjay Dalia and another) wherein it was held that if the plaintiff is carrying on business at a place where the cause of action has arisen, he can only file the suit at that place and not in any other place where he may be carrying on business.

The same was based of limited interpretation of Provisions of Section 134 (2) of Trademarks Act 1999. As per the interpretation given by the Appellant, the Suit was liable to be returned as Plaintiff and Defendant both were carrying on business in similar place in UP. It was not the case of the Appellant that those were the same places.

The Hon'ble Division Bench that in the fact of case, the Respondent was carrying on business at Ghaziabad, U.P. while the Appellant was based in Agra, which were not the same place.

It is submitted that things would have been different , had the relevant places of the Appellant and the Respondent been identical, i.e. either Ghaziabad or Agra, which was not true in the present case.

In view of the above, the Appellant's application based on interpretation of Section 134 of Trademarks Act 1999 under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC could not have been allowed.

The Hon'ble Court was pleased to reject the argument of the Appellant that the Suit was liable to be returned within the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
9990389539

Infiniti Retail Limited Vs Croma Wholeseller and Others

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 25.07.2022

CASE: CS(COMM) 490/2022

NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi

NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Hon'ble Justice Navin Chawla

CASE TITLE: Infiniti Retail Limited Vs Croma Wholeseller and Others

The subject matter Suit was filed on the basis of proprietary rights in the Trademark CROMA.

The Plaintiff also asserted that its trademark CROMA has been declared as well known trade mark under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules,

2017 vide notification dated 24.02.2020.

The Plaintiff was not only having Trademark registration for CROMA but also was having domain name www.croma.com registered in its favour.

The Plaintiff was aggrieved as the Defendants were using domains names, in which Plaintiff's Trademark was essential feature.

The alleged domain names of the Defendants were as under:

www.cromawholeseller.in.,

www.cromawholesellers.in.,

www.cromawholesellers.com,

www.cromawholesale.in.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to grant ex-parte injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

ajayamitabh7@gmail.com

9990389539

Satyanarain Khandelwal Vs Prem Arora

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 18.07.2022
CASE:TR.P.(C) No.47 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Chief Justice and Mr. Subramonium Prasad
CASE TITLE: Satyanarain Khandelwal Vs Prem Arora

This Judgement has come in many Transfer Petitions filed by the Petitioner seeking transfer of Suit from the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge to the Commercial Courts.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to dismiss the Transfer Petitions of the Petitioners after observing that provisions of Commercial Courts Act are not applicable retrospectively.

Since the subject matter Transfer Petitions were filed pertaining to the Civil Suits, instituted prior to the year 03.03.2018, hence the provisions of commercial court act could not be made applicable thereto.

Resultantly the provisions of Commercial Court Act 2015 were held inapplicable to the subject matter suits.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
9990389539

Dr. Reddy Lab Ltd. Vs Rikon Pharma Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 22.07.2022
CASE: CS (Comm) 495 of 2022
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Chief Justice Prathiba M Singh
CASE TITLE: Dr. Reddy Lab Ltd. Vs Rikon Pharma Ltd.

The Plaintiff was having various registrations for the Trademarks NISE
(LABEL)’, ‘NISE’, ‘NISE KID TABLETS’, ‘NISE TABLETS’, ‘NISE
DROPS’ and ‘NISE SUSPENSION’.

Defendant was having registration for the mark ‘RIKONISE.

However the same using the mark RIKONISE in a small font. While NISE was used in bigger font.

Products of both of the parties were same , i.e. pharmaceuticals products.

The Use of impugned trademark with mark RIKONISE in a small font and mark NISE in bigger font was not bonafide.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 Lakh upon the Defendants.

The Hon'ble Court granted the Ex-parte injunction after observing the test laid down in Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited in CA 2372/2001 by the Supreme Court, in pharmaceutical preparations, any form of confusion is to be avoided.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
9990389539

Burnett Research Laboratory vs Burnett Homeopathy Pvt Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 21.07.2022
CASE:CS(COMM) 264/2019
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Prathiba M Singh
CASE TITLE: Burnett Research Laboratory vs Burnett Homeopathy Pvt Ltd.

Inspite of injunction order passed therein and inspite of being aware of that , the Defendant had not only tampered with the goods seized by the Local Commissioner but also removed the goods seized by the Local Commissioners. (Para 22)

Accordingly Defendant was guilty be contempt of court. (Para 23)

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 Lakh upon the Defendants.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
9990389539

#IP_Adjutor #Law #Legal #Trademarkinfringement #Copyrightinfringement #Designinfringement #Patentinfringement #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Iplaw #Ipupdate #Legalupdate

Manish Aggarwal Vs Registrar of Trademarks

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07.07.2022
CASE: W.P.(C)-IPD 10/2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Prathiba M Singh
CASE TITLE: Manish Aggarwal Vs Registrar of Trademarks

The Subject Matter writ Petition was filed against order dated 26.02.2020 where by evidence in support of opposition filed by the Opponent was taken on record by the Registrar of Trademark.

The Petitioner herein is the applicant in the Notice of opposition proceeding, while Respondent No.1 is the Opponent.

The counter statement is stated to have been served upon Opponent on 7th June, 2019 by the Petitioner herein. 

Hence as per the provision of the Trademarks Rules, the Opponent ought to have filed evidence in support of notice of opposition by 7th August, 2019.

Thought the Opponent stated that the same filed notice of opposition by 05.08.2019 however the same was received in office on 13.07.2019. The Petitioner was not provided with the copy of the same. Hence the Petitioner did not file evidence in support of application.

Subsequently the Petitioner came to know that the notice of opposition was taken on record. The Hon,ble High Court of Delhi , vide its order dated 07.07.2022 was pleased to take on record the Opponent's notice of opposition. However the Petitioner was granted Liberty to file rebuttal evidence.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
9990389539