FLIPSTAAN | ICL Exclusive | Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Secrets

flIPstaan: UNRAVELLING THE ‘TRADE SECRET’ CONUNDRUM WITH ‘CHICKEN KHURANA’

SEASON 1 EPISODE 2 – 26th July, 2020 STARTER In the 2012 film ‘Luv Shuv Tey Chicken Khurana’, a character named ‘Omi’ (living in London) under debt informs his creditor that he will clear the loan imposed upon him as his grandfather has a renowned restaurant in Punjab by the name ‘Chicken Khurana’. However, when…

Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark | Uncategorized

M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited v. M/s. Patanjali Ayurved Limited

M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited v. M/s. Patanjali Ayurved Limited Date of Order: 17th July, 2020 in O.A. No. 258 of 2020 in C.S.No.163 of 2020 In the High Court of Madras The present post covers the ex-parte order passed by the High Court of Madras on the application for Interim Relief filed by the…

Competition Law | Intellectual Property Rights | Patent | Uncategorized

Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors.

Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. Date of decision: 20th May, 2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1776/2016 and W.P.(C) No. 3556/2017 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Brief Facts: Petitioners, had developed an advance technology of manufacturing Bt. Cotton seeds which they licensed and…

Intellectual Property Rights | Passing Off | Trade Mark | Uncategorized

ITC LIMITED V. NESTLE INDIA LTD. – CURIOUS CASE OF ‘THE MAGIC NOODLES’ – PART II: POST TRIAL DECISION

ITC Limited v. Nestle India Ltd. Decided on: 10.06.2020 In the High Court of Madras On 10th June, 2020, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras provided a final decision on the suit for passing off filed by ITC Limited (hereinafter ‘ITC’) against Nestle India Limited (hereinafter ‘Nestle’) over latter’s use of the mark ‘MAGICAL MASALA’….

Design | Intellectual Property Rights | Intermediaries/ISPs | Technology Law | Uncategorized

Kent RO Systems Ltd. and Ors. v. Amit Kotak and Ors.

Kent RO Systems Ltd. and Ors. v. Amit Kotak and Ors. 2017 (69) PTC 551 (Del) In this case, Plaintiff wanted the Hon’ble Court to hold that once the Plaintiff has lodged a Complaint before the Defendant No. 2 (Intermediary under the IT Act, 2000) with respect to the offending prouduct of the sellers, the…

aaLAWchak | ICL Exclusive | Uncategorized

aaLAWchak: QATL

  (Image from here) Movie: Qatl Starring: Sanjeev Kumar,Shatrughan Sinha, Ashok Kumar, Marc Zuber & Sarika Directed by: R.K. Nayyar  Year of Release: 1986 Introduction Qatl is one of the many films released post the death of Sanjeev Kumar (and is dedicated to him). It is an interesting thriller which gives a new definition to…

Domain Names | Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark | Uncategorized

REGISTRABILITY OF ‘GENERIC.COM’ MARKS – PART – II: THE DISSENTING OPINION IN USPTO V. BOOKING.COM

Recently, the Supreme Court of United States held that marks which are generic when combined with a top-level domain name may qualify as registrable marks provided the consumers do not consider them to be generic. The decision is in USPTO v. Booking.com B.V. By an 8: 1 majority the matter has been decided against USPTO….

Intellectual Property Rights | Personality Rights | Uncategorized

Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc.

Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. 968 F2D 831 6 circuit 1983 An interesting issue arose before the United States Court of Appeal  for Sixth Circuit. The Plaintiff was the host and star of a show called ‘The Tonight Show’ and was also an entertainer. Since 1962, the Plaintiff was introduced on the show…

Domain Names | Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark | Uncategorized

REGISTRABILITY OF ‘GENERIC.COM’ MARKS – PART – I: THE MAJORITY OPINION IN USPTO v. BOOKING.COM

Recently, the Supreme Court of United States held that marks which are generic when combined with a top-level domain name may qualify as registrable marks provided the consumers do not consider them to be generic. The decision is in USPTO v. Booking.com B.V.. By an 8: 1 majority the matter has been decided against USPTO….