This article is written by Nisha Modak, pursuing a Diploma in Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Laws from lawsikho.com.

Introduction

Through the history of evolution, human beings have emerged as creatures with high intellectual prowess. It is this immense brain power that sets us apart from other species. Right from the early stages of human civilization, we have used our skills and ingenuity to discover and develop several notable inventions such as the wheel, weaponry, methods of agriculture etc. Over time, human beings brought about leaps and bounds of advancements using their knowledge and creativity. The world, as we know it today, is a result of these human inventions.

Gradually it came to be recognized that these man made creations were a valuable and significant asset. The term ‘Intellectual Property’ (IP) was coined to refer to all these works that generate from an innovative mind, in which a person’s thinking, reasoning, creative and analytical skills are put to use. As is evident from the name given to it, these works were recognized as intangible property of the creator and thus, like with all property, the law sought to grant it statutory protection. Thus, legislations began to incorporate statutes and laws specifically addressing intellectual property. Though these laws took different forms in different countries, the fundamental aspects covered by them remained constant throughout the world. Firstly, the statutes were meant to lay down specifics regarding the ownership of the IP, and the rights associated with such ownership. Secondly, they addressed the conditions and situations under which infringement of such rights could be said to have occurred. Lastly, they provided for legal sanctions in case of such infringement, so as to safeguard the rights of the owner.

In India, the legislative system has provided for a nuanced legal framework relating to intellectual property. There are several different aspects covered under the term IP, and hence there are different laws specifically catering to each of these aspects:

• Copyright Act, 1957^[1]

This Act covers the creative aspect of IP, and has provisions relating to artistic, musical, literary, cinematographic etc. works. It protects the creator of the works by prohibiting the use of such works by third parties without the consent of the copyright holder.

• Patents Act, 1970^[2]

A patent is an exclusive right granted to an inventor to use and commercially exploit his invention. This Act lays down all the necessary provisions related to the grant, ownership, term, exploitation, revocation etc. of patents.

• Trademark Act, 1999^[3]

Trademarks are a vital aspect of IP for businesses, since they are used to distinguish the goods and services of one business from those of another. The Trademarks Act covers the various legalities associated with trademarks.

• Designs Act, 2000^[4]

This Act was implemented in the wake of the growth in industrial developments. It safeguards the artistic aspect i.e. the design of industrial products.

Besides these, some of the other intellectual property laws prevalent and enforced in India include:

• Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999
• Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Act, 2000
• Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001

The implementation of these legislations led to a rise in the number of intellectual property disputes that came before the Courts. As people were now aware of the rights they possessed, they did not hesitate in seeking legal reliefs such as damages, injunctions or compensation against the infringement of their IP. Over the years, the Courts have adjudicated countless IP disputes, each with their unique facts, contentions and situations. Thus, the words of the law have been thoughtfully interpreted to align it with the intended purpose behind the law, and Courts have evolved their own principles to be applied while deciding upon cases of intellectual property. In this article, we will look at the 5 most important judgments of 2019 -2020.

Recent landmark judgments regarding intellectual property

• Bajaj Electricals Limited vs. Gourav Bajaj & Anr.^[5]

Facts: The Plaintiff was a part of the renowned Bajaj industry conglomerate, and had electrical stores of the same brand name. The Defendant owned 2 electrical stores and used the name ‘Bajaj’ as a part of his store names and also had a website for the same. Besides this, the Defendant used the expression “Powered by: BAJAJ” in the course of his trade. The Plaintiff established their right over the name by proving that ‘Bajaj’ had been legally granted the status of a well-known trademark, and thus the Defendant had no right to use it. It was further contended that the use of the above stated expression by the Defendant was a clear attempt to deceive the public by suggesting that the Plaintiff sponsored/ endorsed the Defendant’s stores. Thus the Plaintiff filed a suit for an injunction against the infringing act by the Defendant.

Held: The Bombay High Court pondered the question as to whether the present case came under the defense of use of personal name. They held that such defense was not valid as the Plaintiff had adequately proved the mala fide intention of the Defendant behind the adoption of the name ‘Bajaj’ in the course of trade. The Court passed an interim injunction against the use of the trademark in the store names as well as the domain name of the Defendant.

• Marico Limited vs. Abhijeet Bhansali^[6]

Facts: The Defendant herein was a social media influencer, who also operated a YouTube channel of his own. In a video posted on the channel, the Defendant made denigrating comments about Parachute Coconut Oil, which is the Plaintiff Company’s product. The Plaintiff Company had earned immense goodwill in the market owing to the good quality of their goods and were vigilant regarding the disparaging comments being made about their product, as well as the use of their trademark ‘Parachute’. The use of the trademarked name violated the exclusive right conferred to the Plaintiff as the proprietor of the trademark, which amounted to infringement. Thus they approached the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction against the Defendant.

Held: The Court relied on the Trademarks Act, 1999 and in a clear interpretation of Section 29 of the Act, held that the Defendant was guilty of infringing the trademark of the Plaintiff by using it without prior authorization in his video. Hence, an interim injunction was passed against the Defendant along with an order for the removal of the impugned video.

• Sameer Wadekar & Anr. vs. Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt. Ltd & Ors.^[7]

Facts: The present suit was instituted upon the basis of an allegation that the Defendant had copied the literary work of the Plaintiff and converted the same into a web series without his consent, thereby infringing his copyright. The main contention raised by the Plaintiff was that there were several similarities between his work and the web series, and that he had previously shared his work with an individual who was a known associate of the Defendant. Hence he claimed copyright infringement and sought an injunction against the release of the web series. 

Held: The Bombay High Court scrutinized both the works, and concluded that the similarities were not sufficient to declare the web series as a copy of the literary work of the Plaintiff. The similarities that arose were merely related to the concept, and no infringement could be claimed for the same. It also held that the mere fact that the Plaintiff had shared his work with an associate of the Defendant was not enough to establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement. Thus the application for injunction was dismissed and the release of the web series was permitted.

• Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Moviestrunk.com & Ors.^[8]

Facts: The Plaintiff herein was a film production and distribution company, whereas the Defendants operated several online streaming websites. The present suit was filed against the illegal streaming of one of the Plaintiff’s films on the Defendants’ websites, which amounted to copyright infringement. The Plaintiff thus approached the Delhi High Court seeking relief against the infringement.

Held: The Court recognized the right of the Plaintiff granted by the Copyright Act, 1957 over the exclusive exploitation and distribution of their copyrighted content. There was a clear case of infringement against the Defendants who had made the film available to the public without the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff. Hence the Court granted an injunction and also awarded suitable damages.

• International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) vs. Iskcon Apparel Pvt. Ltd & Ors.^[9]

Facts: The present suit was filed before the Bombay High Court for alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff contended that by selling garments under the name of ‘Iskcon’, the Defendant was infringing their trademark and attempting to pass off his brand as being associated with the Plaintiff group. The Plaintiff also sought to get their mark declared as a well-known trademark.

Held: The Court declared that in the present scenario, a clear case of trademark infringement had been established, and hence ordered the Defendants to refrain using the Plaintiff’s mark. It was also concluded that the Plaintiff’s mark satisfied all the statutory requirements of a well-known trademark, and thus the Court declared it as such.

Conclusion

As is evidenced by the recent judgments cited above, the Courts are met every day with new and challenging legal scenarios related to intellectual property. However, in each case, they have risen to the occasion and ably interpreted and applied the statutes, so as to ensure justice is served to any and everyone. Through such landmark decisions, Courts have ensured that the faith of the people in the judicial system is strengthened.

References

^[1] https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf

^[2] http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAct/1_31_1_patent-act-1970-11march2015.pdf

^[3] http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAct/1_43_1_trade-marks-act.pdf

^[4] http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/images/pdf/act-of-2000.pdf

^[5] COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 195 OF 2020

^[6] COMIP NO. 596 OF 2019

^[7] 2020 SCC Online Bom 659

^[8] CS(COMM) 408/2019

^[9] COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 235 OF 2020

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: