In Narendra Hirawat & Co. v. Satish Tandon Productions & Ors. [LD/VC/I.A. No. 193A of 2020 in LD/VC No. 193 of 2020], a Single Judge [K.R. Shriram, J.] of the High Court of Bombay vide an order dated October 16, 2020, directed reinstatement of YouTube links of five of the Plaintiff’s movies, which had been taken down for copyright infringement.

The Plaintiff claimed to have copyright in five movies, which were available on YouTube. The Defendant no. 1 had issued a takedown notice to YouTube with respect to three of these movies, i.e., “Ustado Ke Ustad”, “Sautela” and “Namak”. YouTube communicated this to the Plaintiff, pursuant to which the Plaintiff filed a counter notification. YouTube informed both parties that as per its policy, if Defendant No. 1 does not respond within 14 days with evidence that it has initiated appropriate legal proceedings against the Plaintiff, YouTube will reinstate the Plaintiff’s videos. The Defendant no. 1 filed a suit in July 2020 and forwarded a copy of the plaint to YouTube, which thereafter informed the Plaintiff that their videos will not be reinstated. The Plaintiff accordingly filed the instant suit and also prayed for ad-interim reliefs. 

The Court observed that the Defendant had not sought any ad-interim reliefs since filing the suit in July, and in effect, without grant of any interim or ad interim relief, the Defendant had successfully stayed the reinstatement of the Plaintiff’s videos by YouTube.

Finding this to be prejudicial to the Plaintiff, the Court directed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, YouTube “shall reinstate / reactivate the URL links referred to the five films mentioned hereinbelow and so far as the dispute is restricted to these five films, shall not disable applicant’s channel – NH Studioz from their platform…shall consider the strike notice given by defendant no.1 as withdrawn.” The Court also directed that the Defendant shall not issue any further notices in respect of the five movies which are the subject matter of the suit.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP.

In the matter of Money Market Services (India) Private Ltd. v. Union of India (represented through the Secretary Ministry of Corporate Affairs) [W.P.(C) 5723/2020], a Single Judge [Prathiba M. Singh, J.] of the High Court of Delhi vide judgement dated August 27, 2020, dismissed the petition, challenging the striking off order passed by the Registrar of Companies (“ROC”), Chennai, due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Petitioner challenged the order passed by the ROC in Chennai, striking off the name of the Petitioner form the Register of Companies. The petition has been disputed by the Respondent on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Petitioner’s counsel relied on the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (“SFIO”) investigation, ordered under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Delhi to claim jury diction in Delhi.

The Respondent’s counsel relied on three precedents of the High Court and argued that since the striking off order was passed by the ROC, Chennai, the territorial jurisdiction cannot vest in Delhi.

The Court observed that the grievance of Petitioner is not against SFIO investigation but against the striking off order passed by ROC, Chennai and therefore held that “..the cause of action arose due to the act of the ROC in Chennai and not the Central Government’s act of directing the SFIO investigation….The mere fact that the Central Government may have directed the SFIO investigation, would not vest jurisdiction in this Court, especially when the specific order impugned in this case has been passed by the ROC in Chennai.”

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP.

In the matter of Mattel Inc. v. Present Enterprises & Ors. [CS(COMM) 447/2020], a Single Judge [Mukta Gupta, J.] of the High Court of Delhi vide order dated October 13, 2020, granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and other unknown Defendants (“Defendants”) from infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright in the six characters of its product – ‘Rainforest Family’ and also directed Flipkart (Defendant No. 4) to de-host Defendants’ listings for such products.

The Plaintiff (viz. Mattel Inc.), a manufacturer and seller of games, toys etc. for children, instituted the instant suit contending that the Defendants are using the Plaintiff’s copyrights in respect of its six characters of ‘Rainforest Family’ and passing off the goods as that of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also contended copyright infringement of its artistic work in a set of cartoon animal characters titled ‘Rainforest Family’, for which it owns a copyright registration in the USA.

Further, it was alleged that the Defendants were also passing off the Plaintiff’s trademark and shape mark – ‘KICK AND PLAY’. The Plaintiff contended that it adopted the trademark ‘KICK AND PLAY’ for game and playthings in 2010 and started using the same in 2012. The Plaintiff argued that its products (viz. the six characters of ‘Rainforest Family’ and the goods under the ‘KICK AND PLAY’ trademark), having a lot of variety of colour combination and being appealing and effectively useful, are sold/listed by the Defendants violating the Plaintiff’s trademark rights.

The Court on a perusal of the Plaintiff’s submissions held that “Considering that…copyright granted in USA in respect of the six characters of the ‘Rainforest Family’ would also extend to India in terms of Section 40 of the Copyright Act…the plaintiff has made out a prime facie case in its favour at this stage for grant of an ex- parte ad-interim injunction qua the copyright violation… as respect the trademark violation of its word mark ‘KICK AND PLAY’ as also the design mark, this Court deems it fit to hear the defendants in the first instance before passing any ad-interim injunction…till the next date of hearing, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff…on the plaintiff providing the URLs within three days, defendant No.4 will remove the listings from its platform which relate to the advertisement and sale of the products which violate the copyright of the plaintiff.”

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP.

In Jan Kalyan Samiti v. State of Haryana and Ors. [CWP-16291-2020], a Division Bench [Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.] of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide its order dated October 6, 2020, temporarily stayed the conversion of public parks in a Faridabad township into residential areas and held that each citizen has the fundamental right to fresh air.

The Petitioner, a society in Faridabad, contented that as per the master plan, 7.5 acres of area of the township was earmarked for public parks. However, over the course of time, slums, residential houses, workshops, etc. unauthorizedly came up in the open areas. The Petitioner further contended that even though the Court had earlier issued directions for removal of the encroachments from the parks, the Government of Haryana approved a proposal to convert the public parks into residential areas, and consequently, the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad invited objections/suggestions on the proposal. Accordingly, the Petitioner sought a stay on, inter alia, the proposal and the invitation of objections/suggestions on the proposal.

Placing reliance on, inter alia, Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and Ors. [(1991) 4 SCC 54] and Virender Gaur and others v. State of Haryana and Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 577], the Court observed “We are of the prima facie view that action of the respondents in converting public park into residential area is unconstitutional and contrary to law. The residents of the Society have a fundamental right to free air and to enjoy the public amenities. It was expected from the respondents to evict the illegal encroachers from the public land instead of nullifying the orders passed by this Court from time to time by converting the park into residential areas. The respondents are bound to preserve and save the open spaces. Every citizen has a fundamental right to fresh air. The ecology and environment of the area would be affected drastically if the parks are converted into residential area.”

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP.

In Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Future Consumer Ltd. & Ors.[I.A. No. 4133/2020 in COMM IP Suit No. 4120/2020], a Single Judge [K. R. Shriram, J.] of the High Court of Bombay (“Court”) on October 9, 2020, ruled that the Defendant’s packaging and trade dresses of its goods under the marks “CrackO”, “Kracker King” and “Peek-a-Boo” is nearly identical to the Plaintiff’s trade dresses of rival goods.

The Plaintiff claims that it is in the business of manufacturing and selling of biscuits, wafers, cakes, etc. The Plaintiff submits that it adopted the marks MONACO, KRACKJACK and HIDE & SEEK in respect of biscuits, in the years 1939, 1971 and 1996, respectively. The Plaintiff further submits that it created the packaging (see image) in respect of its goods under the marks MONACO, KRACKJACK and HIDE & SEEK in July 2013, July 2014 and May 2017, respectively.

The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant adopted the trade dresses / packaging / labels (see image) in respect of biscuits, which are identical and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s packaging and trade dresses. The Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant has copied all distinctive elements and features including the layout, color combination and placement from the Plaintiff’s packaging and trade dresses. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant has intentionally stocked its goods under the impugned trade dresses / labels alongside the Plaintiff’s goods to cause deception in the mind of consumers.

The Court prima facie observed that the Plaintiff’s goods under the said packaging / trade dresses have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation. The Court also noted that “…A comparison of the rival products hardly leaves any doubt about the manner in which Defendants have blatantly copied Plaintiffs’ Packaging / labels…the rival labels are being used for identical products under nearly identical packaging and trade dresses”. The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction order restraining the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiff’s trade dresses / labels.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP.