Sound Board

Our thoughts and views on the practice of Intellectual Property in India and around the world.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vide notification dated March 15, 2024 has introduced the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, (hereinafter “new Rules”) in order to amend the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter “old Rules”). The new Rules aim to provide clarity and coherence in the certification process and hold significant implications for filmmakers, distributors, and audiences as well as align with contemporary standards and societal values.

In light of the above, a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v. Dabur India Ltd & Anr. has offered some clarity to the question surrounding extendibility of deadlines at the evidence stage of opposition proceedings. While deciding on whether deadlines at the evidence stage of opposition proceedings were mandatory or merely directory, it was observed that the use of terms like "one month aggregate" in Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules implied a mandatory time…

The article aims to shed light on the nuances of well-known trademarks. It is divided into three parts: Part I discusses the origin and statutory provisions governing well-known trademarks in India; Part II analyzes the benefits of gaining a well-known trademark status for businesses; Part III details out the procedure for seeking a well-known trademark status, and Part IV concludes the article.

The Appellants, Google India (P) Ltd., is a non-exclusive reseller of the Google Ads Programme in India, whereas the Respondents were DRS Logistics (P) Ltd., and Agarwal Packers and Movers (P) Ltd., who are leading packaging, moving and logistics service providers in the country.

When a trademark application is filed and subsequently accepted by the Trademark Office, it doesn't mean an immediate registration. Instead, the accepted application is published in the Trademarks Journal for third parties, who might have concerns or disputes about the trademark, to come forward and oppose the application.

In a recent order passed on August 3, 2023, the Delhi HC in Ravi Manchanda v. Registrar of Trademarks rather scathingly pointed out a glaring error in an order passed by the Senior Examiner of Trademarks. In a case that was described as ‘sui-generis’, the Hon’ble Judge drew attention to a critical discrepancy – the absence of the impugned "order" in the communication sent to the concerned parties.

The case involved a dispute between Wipro Enterprises Ltd., the registered owner of the trademark "Chandrika," in respect of goods covered in class 3, and M/S Mariyas Soaps and Chemicals, the registered owner of the trademark "Chandra" in respect of goods covered in class 3. The court's ruling sheds light on the rights and limitations of registered trademark owners and the grounds for seeking relief in cases of similarity between registered marks.

In this article, we delve into the intricacies of the Calvin Klein case, exploring the Court's findings, and the implications of such actions on brand reputation and consumer trust. The plaintiff's trademark "Calvin Klein" was established and adopted in 1967, deriving its name from the founder. Since its inception, the plaintiff has extensively utilized both "Calvin Klein" and the abbreviated form "CK."

Charter 4 Corp, the plaintiff, claimed to have adopted the 'Supreme' mark back in 1994 in the United States and had been using it in India since 2006, gaining popularity among Indian customers. The company boasted over 700 global registrations for the mark 'Supreme', and they had also filed applications for their 'Supreme' red-box device mark in India.

Kamdhenu Limited filed an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks, who had dismissed their application to have their trademark 'KAMDHENU' included in the "List of Well-Known Trademarks." The Registrar's rejection was the absence of an affidavit along with the supporting evidence to establish the well-known status.