Outside of North America and China, new ecommerce marketplaces are springing up at an increasing rate. As these regional platforms grow, infringers have swarmed to them in response to the global platforms’ growing anti-counterfeiting efforts.
In our latest edition, we look at Porsche revealing its brand protection secrets, Mastercard launching a blockchain program to track fake fashion, WIPO offering a mediation incentive, CNIPA opening a new office, and much more.
In Crocs Inc v Bata India, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Crocs Inc and held, somewhat controversially, that a passing-off action relating to a “registered design used as trademark” can be maintained.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking a stay on the release of Bollywood film Bharat under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act.
In Royal Dryfruit Range v Royal Suvidha, the Bombay High Court has ruled in favour of plaintiff Royal Dryfruit Range and restrained defendant Royal Suvidha from using the trademark/trade name ROYAL SUVIDHA in respect of dry fruits.
In Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v Ajanta Pharma Ltd, the Delhi High Court has held that the strict similarity test for pharmaceutical brands set forth in Cadila also applies to nutraceutical brands.
In Bata India Limited v Chawla Boot House, the Delhi High Court has recognised that Bata India Ltd’s trademark POWER is well known in India, and restrained the defendant from using the word ‘power’ in respect of footwear and related products.
In Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation v Jain, the Bombay High Court has decided to make an example of the defendants and imposed hefty costs of Rs50 million.
A recent case in India has addressed the question of whether a licensee can claim rights in a licensed mark when faced with the termination of the licence agreement.
The Penal Code sets out punishments for cheating, counterfeiting and possession of instruments for making counterfeits, among other things. The code’s provisions can be invoked in criminal actions, in addition to the provisions of specific statutes.
The decision of the Delhi High Court in Curewell Drugs & Pharmaceuticals v Ridley Life Science creates a strict action plan from the moment that a drug and its packaging are created.
In a dispute between New Balance Athletics Inc and Apex Shoe Company Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of New Balance and issued a permanent injunction preventing Apex from using the mark NEW BALANCE.
In Whatman International Limited v Mehta, the Delhi High Court has taken a stern stance against habitual infringers. The decision shows that the Indian courts are increasingly adopting a zero-tolerance policy in such cases.
India's banks operate in one of the world's most active fintech markets. As fraudsters try to take advantage, financial companies must be ready to stop brand infringement.