Bulletin 16 | Aug 2024
Snapshots
DELHI HIGH COURT
SAREGAMA INDIA LTD. VS. EMAMI LTD.
Saregama Ltd. filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendant from using the musical and literary works of the song “Udi Jab Jab Zulfein” from the movie “Naya Daur” for the advertisement of its product, Emami Kesh King Anti Hairfall Shampoo, without obtaining a license. The Defendant raised a challenge to the Plaintiff’s copyright in the song as having expired 60 years after the release of the movie i.e., 15.08.1957.
The Court, as an interim measure, directed the Defendant to deposit a sum of INR 10 lakh and directed the Plaintiff to file its documents outlining licence prices for comparable licences, in a sealed cover.
DELHI HIGH COURT
DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED V. REBANTA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER
In this suit for infringement of Dr. Reddy Labs.’(DRL) trademark ‘REBAHEAL’, the Court granted an interim relief restraining the Defendant from using the identical mark for manufacturing, marketing and selling medicinal products for a different ailment and with a different composition. It was observed that the rival marks are visually and phonetically identical which is likely to cause confusion and deception amongst the general public, doctors, and chemists. Further, the Court noted that since the rival products are meant for treatment of different ailments but target the same classes of consumers, any resultant confusion can cause serious injury to public health.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC V. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS
Microsoft’s appeal against the Controller’s order rejecting its Patent application for lack of inventive step and being a computer program per se (under S. 2(1)(ja) and 3(k) of the Patent’s Act, resp.), allowed. Held:
- 3(k) qualified with the phrase “per se”, does not preclude all inventions based on computer programs from patentability. The claimed invention, resulting in technical advancement, is not a computer program per se.
- ‘Enablement’ not relevant under S.3(k).
- Cited prior arts not analogous – the differences between them and the claimed invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
- Definition of ‘Computer Programme’ under Copyright Act applicable to Patents Act.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD. V. META PLATFORMS INC. & ORS.
In a case involving impersonation and trademark infringement, the Court passed an ad-interim injunction directing social media platforms, including Meta and WhatsApp, to remove AI-generated videos of the MD and CEO of National Stock Exchange (NSE) recommending investors to join a WhatsApp group for stock tips. The NSE urged the due diligence obligations of social media intermediaries under the IT Act and Rules 3(1)(b) and 3(2), and pressed for them to act within 10 hours in urgent cases. The John Doe defendants were restrained from publishing false advertisements on the said platforms, which were further directed to disclose their details.
DELHI HIGH COURT
DIAMOND MODULAR PVT. LTD. V. YASH ARORA AS TRADING AS SIDDHI VINAYAK TRADERS & ANR.
A trademark rectification petition filed on behalf of proprietors of the ‘Diamond’ trade mark, seeking cancellation of “Green Diamond” in relation to electrical products, was allowed. Emphasizing that common words/ names that have been used for a long time are entitled to registration and protection under law, as they acquire distinctiveness and secondary meaning, the Court held that the Respondent’s adoption of the impugned mark was dishonest considering the Respondent was an ex distributor of the Petitioner.
Significant Judgments
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
GENE CAMPAIGN & ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Bench comprising J. BV Nagarathna and J. Sanjay Karol delivered a split verdict on commercial sale of Genetically Modified Mustard in India. The Court was adjudicating whether the approval granted by GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee) and MoEFCC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) for commercial release of GM mustard is valid and in public interest.
With a split decision, Justice Nagarathna quashed the approval granted by the GEAC and MoEFCC whereas Justice Karol upheld it. While the matter is to be placed before Chief Justice of India for review by a larger bench, the DB has directed for a formation of a Committee to frame National Policy on GM crops within four months, thorough testing of genetically modified (GM) crops, and an assessment of the functioning of the GEAC.
The Court also decided that GEAC’s decisions on GMOs are open to judicial review and Importation of GM foods must comply with FSSAI Act labeling requirements.
2. i. The respondent-Union of India is directed to evolve a National Policy with regard to GM crops in the realm of research, cultivation, trade and commerce in the country…
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KAUSHIK NARISBHAI PATEL & ORS. V. M/S S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD. & ORS.
NCLAT upheld the NCLT’s order initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against three Corporate Debtors (CDs), i.e., the landowner, Developer, and the erstwhile Developer. The suspended directors of the CDs approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the NCLAT on the following grounds – IBC does not provide for joint insolvency of separate companies; the criteria mentioned under proviso of S. 7(1), IBC i.e., atleast 100 or 10% allottees have to come together to file an Application under S. 7, is not met; and, the units belonging to allottees could not be developed due to force majeure reasons. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the Appeals, concurred with the following view of the NCLAT:
a) Petition under S. 7 of the IBC can be filed against the three CDs since all of them are ‘intrinsically interwoven’ for completion of the units.
b) The CDs cannot take the defence of force majeure, since the non-completion of the project
was not ‘bolt from the blue’, and was rather on account of the CDs own mismanagement.
c) An Application under S. 7 of the IBC can be admitted even if the claims of certain allottees are time-barred or below the threshold, provided that the default of more than INR One Crore is established by other allottees.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ARIJIT SINGH v. CODIBLE VENTURES LLP AND ORS.
Renowned singer Mr. Arijit Singh (“Plaintiff”) sought protection of his personality rights viz. his name, voice, signatures, photograph, image, caricature, likeness, persona & other attributes of his personality against unauthorized/ unlicensed commercial exploitation, misuse etc. along with protection of moral rights in his performances under S. 38B of the Copyright Act, which were being violated on various AI platforms.
While granting an ad interim dynamic injunction restraining the Defendants from using the singer’s personality rights, the Hon’ble Court observed that this form of technological exploitation not only infringes upon the individual’s right to control and protect their own likeness and voice, but also undermines their ability to prevent commercial and deceptive uses of their identity.
21…even though such freedom allows for critique and commentary, it does not grant the license to exploit a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to protect the Plaintiff against any wrongful exploitation of his personality rights and right to publicity.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Savni D. Endlaw, Snehima Jauhari, Saif Rahman Ansari, Kuber Mahajan, Disha Sharma, Srishti Dhoundiyal and Surabhi Pande.
