| |

Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part II

In our last post on the above subject captioned matter, we had covered the Brief Facts of the matter, the decision of the Learned Single Judge in the present matter and the key takeaways from the said decision. Pertinently, the Learned Single Judge had granted a temporary injunction towards the removal of said video. The…

| |

Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part I

The Bombay High Court in earlier part of the year 2020, has dealt with the case of permissible limits of action of viewers who review products or services. The decision is in the case of Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali[1] wherein the Learned Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi restrained by an order…

flIPstaan+: Patentability Analysis of Invisibility Device of ‘Mr. India’
| | | |

flIPstaan+: Patentability Analysis of Invisibility Device of ‘Mr. India’

SEASON 1 BONUS EPISODE – 3rd August, 2020 On the fine morning of 2ndof August 2020, Mr. Ankit Rastogi woke me up from my bed, to discuss not so much of a eureka moment. He wanted me to provide him an off the cuff patentability analysis of the invisibility band used by Mr. Arun Verma…

| |

Khoday Distilleries Limited (Khoday India Limited) v. The Scotch Whisky Association and Ors.

Khoday Distilleries Limited (Khoday India Limited) v. The Scotch Whisky Association and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 413 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant manufactured whisky under the mark ‘Peter Scot’ since the year 1968. Respondents, an industry body of distillers, blenders and exporters of Scotch whisky, learnt about the Appellant’s trade mark application in 1974.[1] Respondents had…

| |

Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Anr.  v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors.

Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Anr.  v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors. 2018 (73) PTC 15 (SC) The Respondents were the registered owner of three trademarks, the common feature of all of which was the words “Field Marshal”. Out of the three, the first trademark was registered in 1964 and the second and third were…

| |

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Insurance Ltd. & Ors.

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Insurance Ltd. & Ors. 2018 (73) PTC 1 (SC) (Image Credits: Kārlis Dambrāns from Latvia; Image and Creative Common License availalbe at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#/media/File:2016_Toyota_Prius_(ZVW50R)_Hybrid_liftback_(2016-04-02)_01.jpg) Brief Facts: Plaintiff, an automobile manufacturer was incorporated in Japan. Plaintiff had launched world’s first commercial hybrid car called ‘Prius’, in Japan, in the year…

| |

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…

| | |

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…

| | |

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’….

| | | |

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…

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

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….