TRADEMARKS

The Delhi High court in a case [1] temporarily restrained Novakind Bio sciences Private Limited from using its pharmaceutical products bearing the word “KIND” on the ground that it could cause confusion among the public into believing that its pharmaceutical products have something to do with the mark “Mankind”. Mankind argued that the suffix “KIND” is a dominant feature of its family of various registered marks and has established goodwill and reputation in the market.

The Delhi High court in case[1] refused to restrain BharatPe from using the suffix “Pe” and thereby noting that marks “PhonePe” and “BharatPe” are not similar. PhonePe argued that the adoption of the suffix “Pe” in the “BharatPe” is bound to cause an impression in the minds of the consumers that the two marks have some association/nexus.

The Telangana High court in a case [1] refused to interfere with the Orders that directed M/S. G.S.K. Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. to change their name as it was deceptively similar to the mark “GSK”. The court recognised that the mark “GSK” was a widely known mark even before the company in question was established. The Bombay High court in a case 4 quashed a FIR lodged by the Sakal media group against a journalist named Prateek Goyal for falsely applying the Trademark ‘Sakal’ on the online news portal ‘Newslaundry.’ The court noted that the ingredients of the alleged offence were not made out on a bare reading of the relevant provisions of the Trademark Act, 1999.

The Delhi High Court in a case[1] sought a reply from the makers of a biopic on Sushant Singh Rajput on a plea by the demised actor’s father seeking a ban on the film. Sushant’s father argued that any use/misuse of  Sushant’s name/image/caricature/ lifestyle or information from his personal life amount  to infringement of  his “personality right” amounting to passing off.

The Delhi High in a case [1] restrained Indilina Pharmaceuticals from infringing the subject matter of the Patent

‘Sitagliptin’ held by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (MCDC). MCDC argued that Indilina Pharmaceuticals infringed their patent by offering tablets for sale which contained the compound covered by their patent.

 

PATENTS

The Delhi High court in a matter[1] opined that the present circumstances in India have made a case for Central Government/ Controller of Patents to invoke the special provision for Compulsory license of the Patents Act, 1970 for increasing the production capacity of drugs which are used for the treatment of COVID-19.

 

Join our newsletter and get 20% discount
Promotion nulla vitae elit libero a pharetra augue