Welcome to an insightful exploration of recent Intellectual Property (IP) law cases in India, brought to you by BananaIP’s IP Attorneys. Our expertise lies in translating IP legal complexities into clear, engaging knowledge. This blog post showcases a selection of five pivotal IP cases, each shedding light on different aspects of trademark, copyright, and design laws. These cases not only reflect the diversity of challenges in IP law but also illustrate its practical implications. Our goal is to provide you with a deeper understanding of these significant rulings, making IP law more accessible and relevant to your interests.
Court injuncts use of ‘Squeezy Sauce Bottle’ design.
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction against the use of the ‘Gluman Squeezy Sauce Bottle’ of the plaintiff by the defendant. After seeing both the bottles, the Court concluded that the defendant’s bottles were prima facie infringing on the registered design of the plaintiff. The Court took exception to the defendant claiming a pending design as registered on its bottles.
Citation: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI; CS(COMM) 938/2023, I.As. 26075/2023, 26076/2023, 26077/2023 & 26078/2023
‘Shamsheera’ movie is not similar to the script of Bikramjeet Singh titled ”Kabu na chhadein Khet’, says the Delhi High Court.
In a copyright infringement suit filed by the author of the script ‘Kabu na chhadein Khet’, Bikramjeet sing, the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction against the movie ‘Shamshera’ of Yash Raj Films. Though a representative of Yash Raj Films had access to the script, the Court stated that mere access is not enough, and that there must be substantial similarity to prove copyright infringement. As the movie and the script were substantially dissimilar, the Court stated that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case. While arriving at its decision, the court pointed out that common ideas and elements such as period drama, boiling water, use of birds, underground tunnels, and rebellion of a village against a foreign invader are not copyrightable.
Citation: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI; CS(COMM) 483/2022
Devans Vs. Cox Beer: Reusing Beer Bottles amounts to infringement, says Delhi High Court.
In a case filed by Devans Modern Breweries against Jagpin Breweries, the Delhi High Court restrained Jagpin from using recycled bottles of Devans for its Cox 1000 Strong Premium Beer. Jagpin was using the used bottles of Devans to fill and sell its Cox Beer, and agreed to not use them in the future after the case was filed. While passing the order, the Court granted costs of 2 Lakh Rupees to Devans as Jagpin was unnecessarily contesting a clear matter and delaying the proceedings.
Citation: Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8092
Use of ‘Khadi’ in a trademark is prima facie infringing, says the Delhi High Court.
In a case involving the trademark ‘Khadi Rebellion’ for textile products, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using ‘Khadi Rebellion’. The Court stated that as the ‘Khadi’ trademark held by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission has been recognized as a well-known mark, its use by a third party is not permitted. The Court also restrained the defendant from using the mark ‘Khadi’ as a part of the domain name and social media platform handles.
Citation: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI; CS(COMM) 945/2023
GK Hair Vs. GK Wellness for Hair Care Products: The Delhi High Court restrains the use of the trademark ‘GK Wellness’.
In a case involving the trademarks ‘GK Hair’ and ‘GK Wellness’, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against the use of ‘GK Wellness’ for hair care and cognate products. While arriving at its decision, the Court concluded that ‘GK’ as the dominant part of the mark has been copied, and that the anti-dissection rule cannot be applied in this case. The Court also stated that the defendant cannot claim that ‘GK’ is common to trade after registering a mark bearing it based on the Goose-Gander principle.
Citation: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI; CS(COMM) 339/2021 & I.A. 8970/2021
In summarizing these cases, we aim to bridge the gap between legal jargon and practical understanding. The decisions from these recent cases offer more than legal resolutions; they provide a window into the evolving landscape of IP law in India. At BananaIP, our commitment is to enhance your understanding and facilitate informed decision-making in the field of IP. Whether you’re a professional, student, or simply someone with an interest in IP law, we hope these case summaries have offered valuable insights.
For further queries or professional guidance, feel free to reach out to us at contact@bananaip.com or call 91-80-26860414/24/34.
