The Legal 500

Kapil Wadhwa & Ors vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd & Anr

In an earlier matter before the Delhi HC, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and its Indian subsidiary ("Respondents") had sued Kapil Wadhwa ("Appellant"), who was previously an authorized dealer of the Respondent, for sale without the permission of the Appellant of Samsung printers imported from foreign markets into India.

Certain important legal developments and case laws in this area are set out below. 

Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 Passed

The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 (‘Copyright Bill') has been passed by both houses of parliament and now awaits presidential assent to become effective as law. Some of the highlights of the Copyright Bill are:

On behalf of AIPPI India Group and the FICPI India Group, a round-table discussion was organised on the 12th July 2012 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. The objective of the discussion was to take a stock of Indian laws on Intellectual Property and to discuss the most important intellectual property issues of current times.

Success at anti-counterfeiting is heavily dependent on non-porous borders and stringent law enforcement machinery. This involves collaborative and concerted approach involving Custom and Border enforcement officials. We firmly believe that lawyers can play a creative role in knowledge sharing with the law enforcement agencies by facilitating capacity building programs.

Certain important case laws in this area are set out below.

Intellectual Property Rights

The Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill, 2009

In order to enable Indian nationals as well as foreign nationals to secure simultaneous protection of trademarks in other countries, Ministry of Commerce and Industry had introduced the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill 2009 (“Amendment Bill”) in the Parliament.

Case Laws

Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. v. Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar & Ors.

The plaintiff filed an application in the High Court of Madras ("Madras HC") for an injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from infringing the plaintiffs trademark "Nakoda", by using it as their trade mark. The plaintiff's claim was that the defendants were unauthorizedly and illegally using their trademark "Nakoda". However, the defendants' contented that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable as appropriate proceedings in respect of cancellation of the trademark was pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Therefore, this court is liable to stay the present case under Section 124(1)(b)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("Trade Marks Act"). 

Certain important and recent case laws in this area are set out below.

Case Laws

Dart Industries Inc. and Anr. v. Techne Plast and Ors.

The appellant manufactures and sells upholstery fabrics with designs derived from the original and unique artistic works either conceptualized or drawn by its employees or by assignation of the copyright in such artistic works to the appellant by the original artists. The respondents are also the manufactures of upholstery fabrics.

Case Laws Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd.  Cadila Health Care Ltd. (plaintiff) claims to be the owner of the trademark "SUGAR FREE".  Cadila filed a suit in the HC Delhi seeking an interim injunction restraining Dabur India Ltd. (defendant) from using the expression "Sugar Free" on any of their products.

Case LawsKhoday Distilleries Ltd. (Now known as Khoday India Ltd.) (“KDL”) v. The Scotch Whisky Association and Ors.Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, which manufactures whisky under the mark 'Peter Scot'. Manufacture of the said product was allegedly started by the company in May, 1968. An application was filed by it for registration of its mark before the division bench of Madras HC. Petitioner was informed that its application was accepted and allowed to proceed, subject to the condition that the mark would be treated as associated with a registered trade mark number.

F.Hoffmann-LA Roche Ltd. and Anr. (“Roche”) v. Cipla Ltd. (“Cipla”) Roche filed a patent application in India on March 13, 1996. The Drug Controller General of India (“DCGI”) gave approval to Roche for marketing ‘Tarceva’ in India on July 13, 2005 and the patent was granted for ‘Tarceva’ to Roche in India on July 13, 2007. The generic name of the drug ‘Erlotnib’, which Roche markets under a patent of ‘Tarceva’ was launched by Cipla by the name of ‘Erlocip’ in January 2008. The once-a-day tablet cost of Roche is about INR 4800, while Cipla’s version costs about INR 1600.

Case Laws Microsoft Corporation v. Ms. K. Mayuri & Ors.  The present case pertains to the copyright violations done by the defendant by installing pirated softwares, originally published by the plaintiff company, on the computer systems sold by them.

India and Japan have signed a MoU for mutual co-operation in relation to IPR matters entailing capacity building, human resource development and public awareness programmes. The MoU is a follow-up of the joint statement made by the leaders of the 2 countries on December 15, 2006, expressing their willingness to continue to co-operate in IPR matters.

Anti-dumping

Anti-dumping duties have been levied on the goods originating in or exported from the countries given below:

The Government Of India (“GOI”) has recently notified the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 (“Imported Goods Rules”).

Certain important and recent legal developments in this area are set out below. 

Certain important and recent legal developments in this area are set out below.

Certain important and recent development in this area is set out below.

India - France Sign MOU on IPR Issues

The Indian and French Governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU') in Paris on July15, 2006 for cooperation in the field of intellectual property.

Certain new enactment and important and recent legal development in this area is set out below.

Certain new enactment and important and recent legal development in this area is set out below.