Bulletin 22 | Feb 2025
Snapshots
KERELA HIGH COURT
SREEKUMAR AV V. STATE OF KERALA & ANR
Granting bail to Sreekumar A.V., Senior Deputy Editor at DC Books, the Kerala High Court reiterated that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Petitioner was accused under S. 72 of the IT Act, 2000, and S. 316(2) & 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for unauthorizedly publishing a book based on CPI(M) leader E.P. Jayarajan’s life. The Court observed that the maximum punishment for the alleged offenses is five years, i.e., the Petitioner could not have been arrested merely on the satisfaction of the police officer that he had committed the said offences. Bail was granted subject to conditions including cooperation with the probe, furnishing a bond, and restrictions on influencing witnesses or traveling abroad.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SEROSOFT SOLUTIONS V. DEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORY PVT. LTD.
The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order which improperly interfered with the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision rejecting Dexter Capital’s application for extension of time to cross- examine Serosoft’s witness. The Apex Court while allowing appeal, observed:
a) The arbitral proceedings did not suffer from being averse to the principle of Equal Treatment and the provisions of Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since the parties were given sufficient opportunity to present their case.
b) Judicial interference with proceedings of the Arbitral Tribunal is statutorily restrained.
c) The High Court may use the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution to deliberate on the conduct of the proceedings only in matters wherein the order suffers from an apparent perversity.
DELHI HIGH COURT
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED V. VELS FILM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS. In a copyright
In a copyright infringement suit filed in relation to the song ‘Iniya Pon Nilave’, the Court while upholding Saregama’s rights, held that the producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of its soundtrack unless otherwise agreed, and the second proviso to S. 17 of the Copyright Act (inserted by way of the 2012 amendment), which ensures the composer’s rights remain unaffected, shall not apply to the song which was created prior to 2012. Since Saregama had secured rights to the song from the producer of ‘Moodu Pani’ in 1980, composer Ilaiyaraja had no authority to assign them to Vels Film. Balancing both parties’ interests, the Court permitted Vels Film to use the song in its upcoming film Aghathiyaa subject to Vels Film depositing INR 30 Lakh with the Court.
DELHI HIGH COURT
GLOBAL HEALTH LIMITED AND ANR. V. JOHN DOE AND ORS.
The Court observed that the misappropriation of Dr. Trehan’s personality rights for commercial purposes, without his express consent, amounts to a violation of personality rights, as well as dilution of his goodwill. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the removal of deepfake videos of Dr. Trehan circulating on social media, recognizing them as harmful to the reputation of Medanta Hospitals. The Court ordered the videos to be taken down from the defendant-social media platforms within 36 hours, with liberty granted to the Plaintiffs to approach the said platforms for take down of such infringing content discovered during the pendency of the suit.
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
DELHI HIGH COURT
GENSOL ELECTRIC VEHICLES PVT. LTD. V. MAHINDRA LAST MILE MOBILITY LIMITED
The Court was of the view that the mark zeo when used with the house mark “Mahindra” does not infringe Plaintiff’s mark ezlo. The Court considered the aspect that while purchasing a motor vehicle, the name of the manufacturer is relevant and that an average consumer would not only consider the model of the motor vehicle but also its manufacturer. The Court was of the view that when comparing the Defendant’s earlier mark i.e. ‘ezeo’ (i.e. without the “Mahindra” house mark and with an addition of the letter ‘e’ to ‘zeo’), the same would have been ‘almost identical’. However, since the Defendant modified its mark by adding its house mark and changing the name to ‘zeo’, the same makes it distinctive and sets it apart from the Plaintiff’s mark structurally and phonetically. The Court also differentiated the goods of the parties and observed that Plaintiff’s vehicle is an electric passenger vehicle whereas the Defendant’s vehicle is an electric commercial vehicle thereby their shape, size and configuration as well as the prospective consumers would be different. Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AMAN SEHGAL V. NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA &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.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Syngenta limited and anr v. gsp crop science private limited.
In a patent infringement suit involving process patents, the Plaintiffs filed an interim application to enforce compliance with the Terms of Reference (ToR). The ToR established a two-tier Confidentiality Club, however, the Defendant had denied access to documents collected during the Defendant’s site inspection to the Plaintiffs’ Tier-II member, citing risks of leakage and misuse. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the Tier-II member, who is a former employee now serving as an independent contractor, met the confidentiality requirements under Rule 11 of the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022. As he was not an in-house employee, he was entitled to analyze the documents. The Court further noted that the ToR was mutually agreed upon, and the Defendant could not impose restrictions beyond its terms. Accordingly, the Court allowed the application, directing the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff’s tier-II member access to the documents under the ToR, with supplier names redacted.
Meet the Picklers
Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, Aniruddh Bhatia, Saif Rahman Ansari, Disha Sharma, Surabhi Pande, Rimjhim Tiwari, Mehr Sidhu, Srishti Dhoundiyal, Ishi Singh.
