Last week was full of exciting discussions on the blog. Niyati wrote on the Delhi High Court order rejecting the appeal against Pepsico’s potato plant variety revocation order. Aparajita wrote on the potential impact of the recently passed Jan Vishwas Bill, 2023. We also had a guest post by Aditya Gupta on the Delhi High Court Division Bench’s order in Google v. DRS Logistics. Anything important we’re missing out on? Drop us a comment below!
This Weekly Review is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Varsha Sharma. Varsha is a 5th year law student pursuing B. A. LL.B (Hons.) from Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat.
Highlights of the Week
Going Back to First Principles – A Nuanced Understanding of Infringement in Google v DRS
While much media discussion of the case has focused on intermediary liability, Aditya Gupta points out the significance this order holds for the usage of trademarked words as keyword, as the Court has focused on the content of the advertisement, rather than the mere presence of a trademarked word. Read on for his take on what this means for future trademark litigations. Aditya is an attorney at Ira Law and represents Google in trademark litigation relating to keyword advertising.
Jan Vishwas Bill 2023: Small businesses, competition and public health set up to lose?
On the recently passed Jan Vishwas Bill 2023, Aparajita discusses the potential impact the legislation can have on the Indian IP Regime.
Chip and Del(hi) High Court: Pepsico Loses Appeal on Famous Potato Chip Plant Variety
Recently Delhi High Court upheld the order revoking PepsiCo’s plant variety for sharing incorrect and incomplete information in its application. Discussing the order, Niyati points out how the Registrar was negligent in granting the registration, as well as why the court’s finding falls short in the assessment of “public interest”.
SpicyIP Tidbit: No Cure for the Plaintiff’s Heartburns? Delhi High Court Rejects an Interim Injunction Application against Defendant’s Anti-Acidity Drug Despite Finding Trademark Infringement
The Delhi High Court recently rejected an application for an interim injunction despite finding infringement, due to the invalidity of the trademark. Praharsh writes on the order, arguing that the order can further dilute the trademark prosecution stage.
Spicy IP Tidbit: Non-Working will not Work: Delhi High Court’s Inquisitorial Assessment of Interim Injunctions
The Delhi High Court modified an ex parte interim injunction and allowed the defendant to supply the impugned goods because of the non-working of the patent product in India.
Jharkhand High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Alleging Copyright Infringement Against a Professor
The Jharkhand High Court recently passed an order quashing criminal proceedings against a professor who was charged with allegations of copyright infringement by his former student. Discussing the order, Praharsh points out the lack of clarity on a few aspects and notes how the controversy serves as an example against criminalizing copyright infringement.
- The Delhi High Court in Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. vs Umac Pharmaceuticals & Ors., has set aside an order by the ADJ and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The court held that it has been averred that the respondent’s products are sold in Delhi and relying on the decision in Ultra Homes vase, held that the suit was competently instituted.
- A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in BCCL v. E! Entertainment Television, has set aside the impugned order vacating the interim injunction and held that the Single judge did not consider the ruling on transborder reputation in Toyota v. Prius, and had incorrectly relied on the overruled decisions in Peps Industries v. Kurlon and SBL v. Himalayan Drug Co.
- The Delhi High Court in Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. vs Union Of India gave specific guidelines for the examination of applications to register well known trademarks relying on previous court orders.
- The Delhi High Court in Dhariwal Wooltex vs British India Corporation Ltd has set aside the impugned order by the Trademark Registry for being hypertechnical and rejecting the application where evidence of use was furnished a few months later than the mentioned date of prior use.
- A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in RDB v. Harper Collins has upheld the Single Judge’s order finding Satyajit Ray as the first owner of copyright in the film “Nayak”.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
Please click here to view the post on SpicyIP and leave a comment.