Himalaya Wellness Company Vs Abony Healthcare

In case of Dishonest adoption, similarity of trademark has to be seen , even if it is less

Introduction:

Trademark infringement cases often hinge on the balance between the similarity of trademarks and the element of dishonesty by the alleged infringer. In a recent case involving the trademarks "LIV.52" and "LIV.55 DS, LIV 999" the court's decision shed light on the significance of dishonesty and how it can tilt the scales in favor of the plaintiff, even if the similarity between the trademarks is not substantial.

The Case Overview:

The case at hand involves a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants regarding the use of the mark "LIV.52." Plaintiff 2 had obtained registration of this trademark with registration number 180564 dating back to July 10, 1957. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants infringed upon their trademark by using the mark "LIV.55 DS and LIV 999" for a similar liver tonic. Furthermore, the defendants' packaging bore a trade dress strikingly similar to that of the plaintiffs.

The Court's Observations:

The court began by scrutinizing the trade dress of both parties. A mere glance at the packaging of the plaintiffs and the defendants revealed that the latter had intentionally replicated the trade dress of the former. This included the thin orange border at the top, the central white strip, and the green lower half of the bottle/package. The lettering, written in white with similar fonts, also resembled that of the plaintiffs. Even when analyzing the wordmarks in isolation, "LIV.52" and "LIV.55 DS and LIV 999" were unmistakably deceptively similar.

The Importance of Dishonesty:

In trademark infringement cases, the element of dishonesty plays a pivotal role. When the court is prima facie convinced that the defendant has intentionally copied or imitated the plaintiff, the presumption arises that the Defendant has successfully confused consumers. This presumption stems from the belief that the defendant's actions were driven by dishonesty. "When dishonesty on the part of the defendant is evident, the court's focus shifts towards the similarities between the trademarks, even if these similarities are not extensive."

In the case under consideration, the court observed that the defendant's trademarks, "LIV.55" and "LIV.999," were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark "LIV.52." The court's ruling was influenced by the apparent dishonesty of the defendant in replicating the plaintiff's trade dress and trademark. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.

The Concluding Note:

This case serves as a pertinent illustration of the legal principles governing trademark infringement cases. Dishonesty on the part of the alleged infringer can weigh heavily in favor of the plaintiff. When the court discerns that the defendant has deliberately copied or imitated the plaintiff, it presumes that consumer confusion is inevitable. In such instances, the court's attention is directed towards the similarities between the trademarks, even if they are not overwhelmingly alike.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:17/10/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 476/2021

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:7668

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company Vs Abony Healthcare

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Yamini Manohar Vs T.K.D.Keerthi

Exemption Under Section 12 A of Commercial Court Act 2015

Introduction:

Section 12 A of Commercial Court  Act 2015 has been a subject of debate, specifically regarding the mandatory requirement for pre-institution mediation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in the case of Patil Automation Private Limited and Ors. Vs Rakheja Engineers Private Limited (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1028), played a pivotal role in interpreting the applicability and necessity of pre-institution mediation under this section. This Judgement  further clarification the Scope of Section 12 A of Coonercial Court Act 2025  in the case at hand.

Background of the case:

In the case at hand, the defendants/petitioners filed application under O 7 Rule 11 seeking rejection of suit C.S. (Comm.) No. 205/2022 on the ground that there was no application seeking exemption  under Section 12A of Commercial Court Act 2015 . However, the Trial Court rejected this application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This led to the matter being brought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration.

Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation:

In its earlier judgment in Patil Automation Private Limited and Ors. Vs Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, the Supreme Court held that Section 12 A of the Commercial Court Act 2015 mandates pre-litigation mediation. This mandate stands unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. This interpretation laid down a significant precedent regarding the requirement for mediation in commercial disputes.

No Requirement for Exemption Application:

One of the key aspects of the Supreme Court's interpretation was the clarification that Section 12 A does not contemplate seeking leave of the court, nor does it necessarily require an application seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation. The Court highlighted that the language and wording of the section do not impose such conditions. Instead, the provision primarily requires that pre-litigation mediation should be sought unless the suit specifically involves urgent interim relief.

The Court's View on Exemption Application:

The Supreme Court made it clear that while an application seeking a waiver based on grounds and reasons related to urgent interim relief can be beneficial and assist the court in making an informed decision, it is not a statutory mandate under Section 12 A of the Commercial Court Act. According to the Court's interpretation, the existence of such an application is not a precondition.

Application to the Present Case:

In the case in question, the Plaintiff  sought urgent interim relief, meeting the condition that the plaint "contemplates" such relief. This fact satisfied the requirement of Section 12 A of the Commercial Court Act. Consequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment/order of the Delhi High Court, which had, in turn, confirmed the order of the District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, South District at Saket, New Delhi. The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the appeal reinforced the interpretation that Section 12 A of the Act does not mandate a formal exemption application and that the existence of urgent interim relief is the determining factor.

The Concluding Note:

The Supreme Court's interpretation in Patil Automation Private Limited and Ors. Vs Rakheja Engineers Private Limited has provided valuable clarity on the applicability of Section 12 A of the Commercial Court Act 2015. The judgment emphasizes that pre-institution mediation is mandatory unless the suit specifically contemplates urgent interim relief. Moreover, it clarifies that an application seeking exemption is not a statutory requirement.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:13/10/2023

Case No. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 32275/2023

Neutral Citation No: N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Supreme Court of India

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Khanna and S.V.N.Bhatti, H.J.

Case Title: Yamini Manohar Vs T.K.D.Keerthi 

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, 

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs Fantasy Sports MYFAB11 Pvt. Ltd.

Copyright Infringement in Fantasy Games Leagues Mobile App

Introduction:

Let us delve into a recent legal case pending before Hon'ble Justice Ms. Jyoti Singh, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in which a plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, alleging copyright infringement regarding a Fantasy Sports Mobile App. The lawsuit revolves around the introduction of a new feature by the defendant in their MYFAB11 app and the alleged copying of the plaintiff's concept, working, features, and execution. This article provides an analytical assessment of the case, examining the core arguments presented by both parties and the court's observations.

The Plaintiff's Allegations:

The plaintiff, in this case, claimed that they had developed a unique Fantasy Sports Mobile App, registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, as a literary and dramatic work. The app differentiated itself from conventional Fantasy Games Leagues. The subject matter suit was filed to prevent the defendant from making the plaintiff's copyrighted work available for download through their MYFAB11 app, or any similar app using the same application or computer program, thereby allegedly infringing the plaintiff's copyrighted works. The defendant had introduced a new feature, 'STOCKS,' in their Fantasy Sports League Mobile App MYFAB11, which the plaintiff asserted not only copied the concept but also its working, features, and execution of the plaintiff's buy/sell interface.

The Defendant's Defense:

The defendants contested the plaintiff's claims by arguing that the plaintiff had concealed the fact that they were not the first to combine the features of Fantasy Sports Leagues with the stock market. They pointed out the existence of numerous third-party applications with similar concepts. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff's assertion of copyright infringement in the Graphical User Interface (GUI) of their app was misconceived, as no copyright was claimed in any artistic work.

Court's Observations:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while refusing to grant interim injunction relief, made several critical observations. The court noted that although the plaintiff claimed to have introduced the unique idea of integrating Fantasy Sports Leagues with the stock market in 2010, no material evidence was provided to substantiate this claim. The absence of concrete evidence raised questions about the originality and uniqueness of the plaintiff's concept.

The Court's Analysis:

The central question addressed by the court was whether the plaintiff had merely adopted a pre-existing idea or reproduced it in a different form, tone, or tenor to give it a new expression and infuse new life into the concept. In examining the plaintiff's mobile app, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to meet the burden of proof. The court's decision rested on the principle that copyright protection is not granted to ideas but to the expression of those ideas.

The Concluding Note:

This case highlights the importance of concrete evidence and a strong legal basis in copyright infringement suits, particularly in the dynamic world of mobile applications. It underscores the need for plaintiffs to provide substantial proof of originality and uniqueness when claiming copyright infringement in the face of similar concepts.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:17/10/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 244/2022

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:7593

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Jyoti Singh, H.J.

Case Title: Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs Fantasy Sports MYFAB11 Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Nishita Design And Anr Vs Clay Craft India Pvt.Ltd.

Scope and Implications of class of Design Registration in Infringement Cases

Introduction:

This article delves into a recent legal case wherein the issue of the scope of design registration class was raised. The case involves the plaintiff, a manufacturer of crockery products, who sought to protect their registered designs, "DEVANAGIRI" and "BANARAS," against alleged infringement by the defendant, who manufactured cups. The central question before the court was whether the plaintiff's design registration for plates extended to cover the defendant's cups, as both products fell within the same class.

Design Registration and Scope:

Design registration is a legal mechanism that provides exclusive rights to the creator of a novel and original design. In India, the Designs Act, 2000 governs the registration and protection of designs. Section 2(d) of the Act defines "design" as features of shape, configuration, pattern, or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process.

The case under discussion revolved around the interpretation of Section 22(1)(a) of the Designs Act, which states that a registered design cannot be applied by any third person to any article in the class of designs for which registration is granted. This provision is essential in determining the extent of protection that a design registration offers.

Applicability of Section 22(1)(a):

In this case, the plaintiff registered two designs: "DEVANAGIRI" and "BANARAS," which were applied to the surface of plates. However, the defendant produced cups, not plates, and both products were classified under class 07-01. The critical question was whether the protection extended to the defendant's cups based on the same class classification.

The Court's Ruling:

The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of Section 22(1)(a) and the classification system under the Designs Act. The court noted that Class 07-01 covered both plates and cups, among other articles. The plaintiff's design registration explicitly related to plates, but since the defendant's product, cups, fell within the same class, the court found that the protection could extend to them. The defendant was temporarily restrained from using the "DEVANAGIRI" design on their cups until the matter was resolved. However the Defendant was granted time to file reply in so far as "BANARAS," was concern.

Implications:

This case raises several important legal and practical implications:

Interpretation of Design Registration Class:

The case highlights the significance of the classification of designs under the Designs Act. While registration is specific to the design's application to a particular article, it can also encompass other articles within the same class, as seen in this case.

Protection Beyond the Registered Article:

Design registration not only protects the exact article to which the design is applied but also extends to other articles in the same class. This interpretation reinforces the comprehensive protection provided by design registration.

Importance of Clarity in Registration:

Designers and businesses must be meticulous in specifying the class and the article to which their design applies during the registration process to avoid ambiguity.

Exclusivity of Design Rights:

The ruling reaffirms the exclusive rights granted to design registrants and underscores the importance of vigilance in monitoring potential infringements within the same class.

The concluding Note:

The case discussed in this article serves as a notable example of the complexity of design registration and its implications for the protection of intellectual property rights. The court's interpretation of Section 22(1)(a) reinforces the principle that design protection extends not only to the registered article but also to any article within the same class.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:13/10/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 737/2023

Neutral Citation No: NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Case Titled: Nishita Design And Anr Vs Clay Craft India Pvt.Ltd.

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Fsn E-Commerce Ventures Ltd Vs Nykaa E-Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Trademark Infringement and Triple Identity Case: 

Introduction:

TThe case of NYKAA vs. OYKAA revolves around a dispute concerning the use of a similar trademark, which has raised concerns about the protection of established brand identities. In this analytical legal article, we will delve into the details of the case, examining the key elements of trademark infringement and the application of the "triple identity" test, as seen in the judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

Background of the case:

The Plaintiff, NYKAA, has been engaged in the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of a wide range of cosmetic and wellness products under the trademark 'NYKAA' since 2012. They have secured trademark registrations for 'NYKAA' in various classes, not only in India but also in several other countries, including Singapore, UAE, United Kingdom, Bangladesh, Kuwait, and Qatar. The Plaintiff's extensive presence in the cosmetics industry, both in terms of products and geographic reach, highlights the significance of their brand identity.

On the other hand, the Defendants filed an application for the trademark 'OYKAA' for a substantial array of cosmetic products in class 3. Furthermore, the Defendants are actively marketing these products and maintain an online presence through the website www.oykaa.com. This situation gave rise to concerns regarding trademark infringement, necessitating a legal intervention to protect the Plaintiff's rights.

Application of the "Triple Identity" Test:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relied upon the precedent set in the case of Ahmed Oomerbhoy Vs. Gautam Tank (2007 SCC OnLine Del 1685) to assess the case. In the aforementioned case, the word 'Postman' and the device mark 'Postman' were registered trademarks. The Court in that case held that since the impugned mark, 'Super Postman,' was similar, the goods were the same, and the area in trade was common, the test of "triple identity" was satisfied, establishing a case for infringement and passing off.

In the NYKAA vs. OYKAA case, the Court made a similar observation. It was determined that the services and goods offered by both parties were identical. The trade channels and the customer base also overlapped significantly. The Defendant's mark, 'OYKAA,' was found to be not just similar but almost imitative and identical to that of the Plaintiff's mark, 'NYKAA.' These observations collectively indicated the fulfillment of the "triple identity test" in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Relief Granted:

With the "triple identity" test satisfied, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi granted interim injunctive relief in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. This relief effectively prevents the Defendant from using the infringing mark, 'OYKAA,' for their cosmetic products. This decision underscores the court's commitment to protecting the Plaintiff's established brand identity and preventing consumer confusion in the marketplace.

The Concluding Note:

Trademark infringement cases such as NYKAA vs. OYKAA serve as crucial legal mechanisms for protecting brand identities and ensuring fair competition in the marketplace. The application of the "triple identity" test, as established in legal precedents, provides a clear framework for assessing infringement cases. 

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:12/10/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 726/2023,

Neutral Citation No: NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, H.J.

Case Titled: Fsn E-Commerce Ventures Ltd Vs Nykaa E-Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, 

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Salik Mukhtar And 4 Others Vs M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd

Trademark Infringement and Dissolution of Partnership

Introduction:

The present appeal centers around a dispute involving the usage of the trademark "Musa Ka Gul" in connection with tobacco products. The Plaintiff/Respondent and the Defendant/Appellant share a common familial lineage, but the former has obtained trademark registration for the said mark, while no such registration exists in favor of the Defendant. The issue at hand has previously been a subject of arbitration before the High Court of Kolkata, which led to an interim injunction against the Defendant's use of the trademark.

Factual Background:

The crux of this case lies in the dissolution of the firm "M S Industries." The Appellant contends that subsequent to issuance of the injunction against M.S.Indistries by the Kolkata High Court in the arbitration proceedings, M S Industries was dissolved, rendering the injunction inoperative against the individual Defendants.

Court's Decision:

However, the court has dismissed the Appeal, stating that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the partnership business was formally and entirely wound up. Mere dissolution of the partnership, even with approval from the proceedings in question, does not grant the Defendants the authority to produce and sell products with a name and identity deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the Plaintiff-Respondents.

Legal Analysis:

1. Trademark Registration:

The Plaintiff's registration of the trademark "Musa Ka Gul" is a pivotal point in this case. Trademark registration grants exclusive rights to the owner, providing protection against any unauthorized usage of the mark in connection with similar goods or services.

2. Injunction:

The interim injunction issued by the Kolkata High Court in arbitration proceeding, signifies the seriousness of the dispute and the potential harm to the Plaintiff's trademark rights. The court's prior decision underscores the importance of safeguarding registered trademarks from infringement.

3. Partnership Dissolution:

The dissolution of M S Industries raises the question of whether the individual Defendants can be held responsible for trademark infringement. The court's decision suggests that the dissolution alone does not absolve the Defendants of liability.

4. Authority to Use Trademark:

The court has stressed that the authority to use a trademark, especially in connection with deceptively similar products, is not automatically conferred upon the dissolution of a partnership. Other factors, such as trademark registration and previous legal proceedings, must be considered.

The Concluding Note:

This legal analysis highlights the complexities surrounding trademark infringement and the dissolution of a partnership. While the dissolution of M S Industries may have affected the corporate entity, it does not automatically grant the individual Defendants the right to infringe upon the Plaintiff's registered trademark. The court's decision underscores the significance of upholding trademark rights, even in cases involving familial or partnership disputes.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:13/10/2023

Case No. First Appeal from Order 2170 of 2022

Neutral Citation No: 2023: AHC:197942

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Allahabad

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Kshitij Shailendra, H.J.

Case Titled: Salik Mukhtar And 4 Others Vs M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Ayur United Care Vs Union of India

The Court should not legislate, but has to abide by the statutory dictate

Introduction:

The recent abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and the establishment of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division have given rise to a pressing legal question: Which judicial authority [Hon'ble Single Judge or Hon'ble Division Bench, High Court of Delhi ] should hear writ petitions challenging orders passed by the IPAB before its abolition on April 4, 2021? This complex issue has far-reaching implications and requires a thorough legal analysis.

The Vanishing Jurisdiction Dilemma:

One of the central issues that have emerged in this context is the practicality of remanding cases back to the court when the IPAB, the original adjudicatory body, no longer exists. The Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division now grapples with the challenge of determining the appropriate judicial authority to handle these cases.

The Judicial Wisdom:

The Hon'ble Single Judge in the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court has provided an insightful perspective on this matter. The Judge underscores a fundamental principle of the judiciary – the court's role is not to legislate but to adhere to statutory provisions. The court is bound by the statutory dictate, and if the law designates a particular category of matters to be heard by Single Judges, the court must abide by this directive.

Rule 4 of the IPD Rules emerges as a crucial piece of the puzzle when read in conjunction with various clauses in Rule 1. It unequivocally dictates that writ petitions challenging IPAB orders must be heard by Single Judges. These orders fall under the category of "IPR subject matters" as defined in Rule 2(i) of the IPD Rules.

Deciphering the Statutory Framework:

The significance of this legal analysis lies in the clarity of the IPD Rules. These rules provide a structured framework for dealing with intellectual property matters in the post-IPAB era. Writ petitions directed against IPAB orders unmistakably fall within the definition of "original proceedings, appellate, and other proceedings related to IPR subject matter(s) as defined in Rule 2(i)."

Furthermore, the subject matter writ petitions are encompassed within the broader definition of "IPR subject matters or cases or proceedings or disputes" by virtue of the opening words of Rule 2(l). Hence, the conclusion is that such writ petitions are maintainable before the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.

The Concluding Note:

In the wake of the IPAB's abolition and the establishment of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division, the jurisdictional dilemma posed by writ petitions challenging IPAB orders has been met with legal wisdom and a strict adherence to the statutory dictate. The Hon'ble Single Judge's stance on this matter is clear: the court's role is not to legislate but to follow the law.

By interpreting Rule 4 of the IPD Rules in conjunction with other relevant clauses, the court has established a robust framework for addressing intellectual property matters post-IPAB. This legal analysis underscores the importance of maintaining legal consistency and adherence to established rules in the evolving landscape of intellectual property rights in India. The clarity of the statutory framework ensures that the law is not only followed but also that justice is served effectively.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:16/10/2023

Case No. W.P.(C)-IPD 61/2021 

Neutral Citation No: 2023: DHC:7556

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Case Titled: Ayur United Care Vs Union of India

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, 

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. Vs POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd.

The Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Infringement

Introduction:

The recent legal dispute between Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. ("the Plaintiff") and an opposing party ("the Defendants") before the High Court of Delhi has brought to the forefront the intricacies of the idea-expression dichotomy in copyright law. This article delves into the details of this case, examining the fundamental principles of copyright law and their application in the context of protecting creative works.

The Plaintiff's Allegations:

The Plaintiff's case revolves around the alleged infringement of various forms of content, including photographs, literary works forming the basis of stories, videos, and the distinctive manner of presenting these stories. The core of their argument is that the Defendants have imitated and copied a significant portion of their content, even replicating several images. The Plaintiff contends that this unauthorized reproduction constitutes copyright infringement.

The Defendant's Defense:

Conversely, the Defendants argue that the commonality of images between the two websites may stem from the subjects of the stories providing these images. Furthermore, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff has also engaged in copying, pointing to instances where the Plaintiff allegedly replicated images from the Defendant's website.

The Idea-Expression Dichotomy:

Central to this legal battle is the idea-expression dichotomy inherent in copyright law. This doctrine distinguishes between the protection of ideas and the protection of the expression of those ideas. Copyright law recognizes that ideas, concepts, or themes themselves cannot be copyrighted. It is only the unique expression, the creative embodiment of these ideas, that warrants protection.

The Copyright Act of 1957:

Under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the unauthorized copying or imitation of the expression of an idea amounts to copyright infringement. This provision safeguards the rights of creators by granting them the exclusive authority to control the reproduction and distribution of their original and creative expressions.

Court's Ruling:

In this specific case, the court has carefully examined the arguments of both parties. It observed that neither party is entitled to replicate or imitate each other's content and images. Moreover, the ruling emphasizes that this protection extends to literary content as well. As a result, the court issued an order that both parties, namely Humans of Bombay and People of India, should refrain from using each other's copyrighted works.

The Concluding Note:

The Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. v. People of India legal dispute provides a significant illustration of the idea-expression dichotomy in copyright law. It underscores the principle that copyright protection is not extended to abstract ideas or themes but rather to the creative expressions of those ideas. Copyright holders are granted exclusive rights to their original works, and any unauthorized replication can lead to infringement claims. The court's decision in this case reaffirms these principles, highlighting the importance of respecting the idea-expression dichotomy in copyright law and upholding the rights of creators and copyright holders.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:11/10/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 646/2023

Neutral Citation No: 2023: DHC:7524

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M, Singh, H.J.

Case Titled: Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. Vs POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, 

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Kross S.A. Vs Vijay Munjal

The Crucial Role of Due Diligence in Post-Trial Amendments

Introduction:

One critical aspect of litigation is the ability to make amendments to pleadings as new information or strategies emerge. However, as a recent case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court demonstrates, such post trial amendments require due diligence to be considered admissible and effective. In this case, the plaintiff sought to amend their complaint post-trial, but the court rejected the application on the grounds of a lack of due diligence.

Background of the Case:

The lawsuit in question aimed to secure a permanent injunction against the defendants, preventing them from using the mark "KROSS" for any product or service. Initially, the suit was brought against three defendants: Hero Eco Group (Defendant 1), Mr. Vijay Munjal (Defendant 2), and Hero Eco Tech Limited (Defendant 3). However, by an order dated 20 February 2014, Hero Eco Group was removed from the list of parties, leaving only Mr. Vijay Munjal and Hero Eco Tech Limited as the defendants.

In a surprising turn of events, the plaintiff, around 15 February 2021, filed an application to amend the complaint by adding VR Holdings, Ms. Rekha Munjal, Mr. Naveen Munjal, and Mr. Gaurav Munjal as Defendants 3A to 3D. Notably, the application for amendment occurred after the trial had commenced.

The Court's Observations:

During the trial, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court made a significant observation. The Hon'ble Single Judge noted that the plaintiff had only sued the user of the "KROSS" mark and not the proprietor. Consequently, the proprietor of the mark, VR Holdings, remained free to continue using the mark. In light of this, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to add VR Holdings and others as additional defendants, an application that was clearly made after the trial stage.

The Court's Decision:

The court, however, rejected the plaintiff's application for amendment. The rejection was primarily based on the absence of due diligence exhibited by the plaintiff. The court highlighted that the application failed to plead that the plaintiff had exercised due diligence before the trial began. It did not establish that, despite diligent efforts, it was impossible to include the proposed defendants, Defendants 3A to 3D, or to introduce the arguments now sought to be raised through the amendment before the trial commenced.

The court also considered the plaintiff's replication, which asserted that the suit was not flawed due to misjoinder of parties or the non-joinder of a necessary party. The plaintiff maintained that Mr. Vijay Munjal had already been included as Defendant No. 2, as he was both the chairman of Hero Eco Group and a partner in VR Holdings, which filed the "KROSS" mark. Therefore, there was no misjoinder of parties.

However, it became apparent that the plaintiff was aware of the trademark's ownership by VR Holdings when filing the replication. Yet, VR Holdings had not been included as a defendant until the final argument stage. This lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in filing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC played a significant role in the court's decision to dismiss the application.

The Concluding Note:

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of due diligence in the legal process, particularly when seeking to make post-trial amendments. In litigation, parties must actively investigate and address relevant issues promptly. In the absence of diligence, courts may be hesitant to entertain late-stage amendments that could disrupt the proceedings. The decision underscores the necessity of careful and proactive legal strategy throughout the litigation process.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:10/10/2023

Case No. CO Comm IPD TM 358 of 2021

Neutral Citation No: 2023: DHC:7461

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Case Titled: Kross S.A. Vs Vijay Munjal

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539