Copyright Infringement

Subscribe to Copyright Infringement via RSS
Reptilian showdown in Court

In a landmark decision that concluded a protracted legal saga, the Delhi High Court (“Court”) has recently resolved a 23-year dispute between two global fashion titans – Lacoste S.A. (“Plaintiff”) and Crocodile International Pte Ltd (“Defendant”). The Court issued a permanent injunction against the Hong Kong-based Crocodile International, prohibiting the use of the Crocodile trademark, which was found to infringe upon the iconic trademark of the French luxury sportswear brand, Lacoste.Continue Reading Reptilian showdown in Court

Mastery of Moment Marketing: Maximum Impact & Minimal Legal Risk

Introduction

In the dynamic world of digital marketing, moment marketing is emerging as a potent strategy for leveraging real-time events and trending issues to engage audiences across social media platforms. Its agility and virality have helped many brands successfully connect with the general public, particularly social media users, across the globe in unprecedented ways. As brands race to capitalize on such viral moments, the relevance of moment marketing in generating a high number of impressions on their social media posts and even physical hoardings has never been more pertinent.Continue Reading Mastery of Moment Marketing: Maximum Impact & Minimal Legal Risk

Cause of action for a Writ Petition in Patent Suit stands independent of “Appropriate Patent Office” Determination under Patent Rules

In University Health Network v. Adiuvo Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.[1], Madras High Court has held that it shall have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ ‘irrespective of the location of the appropriate patent office’[2], which was Delhi. At the time of filing of a patent application, “appropriate office” for that application is ordinarily frozen, i.e. decided based on the place of residence or domicile or business of the applicant(s); or where the invention originated; or based on the address of service of the applicant in India, in case of a foreign applicant.[3] Section 2(1)(r) and 74 of the Patents Act 1970 (“the Act”), Rule 4 of Patent Rules 2003 (“Patent Rules”), and Clause 3.02 of Patents Manual indicate the immense significance of ‘appropriate office’ in the process of prosecution and grant of patent application in India. For instance, all proceedings are conducted from the appropriate office, all communications related to the proceedings are addressed to the concerned appropriate office, among others.Continue Reading Cause of action for a Writ Petition in Patent Suit stands independent of “Appropriate Patent Office” Determination under Patent Rules

COGNIZABILITY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DEBATE IS BACK

The question of whether the offence of copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957 (the “Copyright Act”) is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence, has long been debated and addressed varyingly by different High Courts over the years. Recently, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court (“Rajasthan HC”) in the case of Nathu Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan[1] had the occasion to consider this question once again, and in doing so, opted to refer the same to a larger bench for settling the issue, thereby bringing this debate to the fore once again. This article shall analyse relevant statutory provisions and jurisprudential developments in order to understand how courts have dealt with the issue.
Continue Reading COGNIZABILITY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DEBATE IS BACK!