Case Study Archives

Latest Copyright Cases – 2021 – Part 6

Mrs. Sellappapa Keeran v. S. Vijayaraghavan & Anr The Plaintiff, Mrs. Sellappapa Keeran, wife of late Pulavar Keeran, a famous religious Hindu preacher and historian, sought a declaration from the Madras High Court that she was the rightful owner of the copyright of her husband’s works. She also filed for an injunction against the Defendants, asking them to surrender all master tapes containing original recordings of the speeches, lectures and discourses and in any other form like cassettes or CDs. …

November 10, 2021 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0Comment 2554Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Latest Copyright Cases – 2021 – Part 5

M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd. v. M/s. Nitin Productions & Anr Defendant Nitin Productions assigned the copyright of the film “HUDUGAATA” in favour of the Plaintiff after receipt of the agreed consideration. By virtue of the agreement, the Plaintiff became the absolute copyright owner of the aforementioned film which included satellite rights, radio rights and other similar rights perpetually. However, Defendant M/s. Public TV, telecast songs from the film without obtaining prior permission. The Plaintiff, which held the copyright of…

November 10, 2021 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0Comment 2556Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Latest Copyright Cases – 2021 – Part 4

Saregama India Limited v. Next Radio Limited & Ors. The Apex Court, in the instant case, set aside an interim order passed by the Madras High Court, which held that copyrighted material cannot be broadcasted without prior notice as per Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. The High Court had modified specific provisions of the Rule and applied it to the broadcasters, by opining that the Rule lacked flexibility and created difficulties for the broadcasters. The mandate to furnish…

October 20, 2021 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0Comment 3132Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Latest Indian Copyright Cases – 2021 – Part 3

Muthoot Finance Limited vs Shalini Kalra & Ors In this case, the Plaintiff, Muthoot Finance Limited, a non-banking financial institution, provided business and personal loans against the deposit of gold jewellery. As a part of this business the Plaintiff had to maintain proprietary and confidential information related to its vast customer base in the form of a database which in turn constituted a ‘literary work’ as under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and it also amounted to trade…

October 20, 2021 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0Comment 4298Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 10

Geetanjali Studio Private V. Nuxi To Kut N Kurl Private Limited In this case, Geetanjali Studio Private, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 seeking prima facie ex-parte injunction to restrain Nuxi To Kut N Kurl Private Limited, the Defendant, from offering for sale of any services or goods under the marks GEETANJALI, GEETANJALI SALON, GEETANJALI STUDIO or any other identical or deceptively similar marks. The Plaintiff entered into…

October 20, 2021 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 2662Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 9

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Vansh Cosmetic and Anr In this case, the Plaintiff was the true proprietor of the marks “LAKME”, “LAKME NINE TO FIVE, NINE TO FIVE”, “9 to 5”, “LAKME EYECONIC”, “LAKME ABSOLUTE”, “LAKME ABSOLUTE WHITE INTENSE”, “LAKME ABSOLUTE ARGAN OIL RADIANCE” and many others, which had been successful in the market since 2011. Around July 2021, it was found that the Defendants were selling the counterfeit cosmetic products/goods of “LAKME” brand the counterfeit products were a blatant…

October 20, 2021 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 3351Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 8

Prateek Chandragupt Goyal vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr. In this case, the petitioner, Prateek Goyal, a journalist working with Newslaundry filed a writ petition to quash the First Information Report registered against him at Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune for offences under Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The FIR was registered against the petitioner by Chief Administrative Officer of Sakal Group for writing highly defamatory articles against the Sakal Media Group and that use of the…

September 29, 2021 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 2935Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 7

Victoria Foods Private Limited v. Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr. In this case, the Plaintiff claimed to have originally conceived and adopted the trademark “Rajdhani” for food products, condiments, confectionary, etc. Through social media it found that the Defendants, engaged in the business of Indian Spices under the name of “Rajdhani Masale Co.” and “New Rajdhani Masala Co.” were using its trademark and labels on their products. Aggrieved by the same, Plaintiff filed a suit as well as an interim…

September 7, 2021 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 4690Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 6

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANR. VS ASHOK KUMAR In this case, Reliance Industries Limited, the Plaintiff, found a hardware fittings and bathroom accessories retailer using their well-known mark ‘JIO’ and hence filed a trademark & copyright infringement suit before the Bombay High Court. The Defendant on 11th June, 2021 had filed two applications for registration of the mark JIO and pirated artwork which were advertised, claiming use since 16th December, 2016. The court noted that the Defendant not only copied…

August 26, 2021 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 4439Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Start Up – Networking Portal

Nature of the company: Start Up - Networking Portal Why they approached us: Low on financial resources to aggressively protect IP. Did not have online instruments in place - terms and conditions, privacy policy, licenses, and so on. Was not following any process, or system, for safeguarding its IP interests. What did we do: Helped the company file its trademarks, patents, and copyrights for a highly discounted professional fee, and small equity. Drafted all…