x

October 2019

IPR Amicus: August 2019


Trademark passing-off against film release
by Sutapa Jana


Delhi High Court recently has reiterated the well-established principle that a plaintiff who approaches the Court for discretionary relief of injunction by concealing and suppressing material facts should not be entitled for any relief and that the words which are generic in nature cannot be monopolized by any person. The Court was also of the view that the standards set for censorship must make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom and the Court should generally refrain itself from granting an injunction against release of a movie when the Central Board of Film Certification has already granted the certificate. It also noted that films are important way to highlight the social issues and an artist and the producer has the right to portray the life in all its hues, including social vices and that curbing the same would be against the Constitutional right, as freedom of expression is sacrosanct…

Ratio decidendi

  • Pharmaceutical patent – No interim injunction unless opinion formed on three elements and some additional feature - Delhi High Court
  • Use of same word in name of company – Remedies available under both Companies Act and Trademarks Act - Bombay High Court
  • Trademarks – Merchandise with names of airlines also poses serious threat - Delhi High Court
  • Trademark in name of company – Use in a hologram not amounts to use any differently - Delhi High Court

News Nuggets

  • Trade marks ‘Panderm’ and ‘Polyderm’ are not deceptively similar
  • Copyrights – Use of protected work for reporting current event when correct
  • Absence of expression ‘Original’ in Section 13(1)(b) of Copyright Act is not material

August, 2019/Issue-95 August, 2019/Issue-95

Browse articles