A ‘Legal Issues Seminar – General IP’ (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Devesh Kapoor, Associate, on ‘Whether Use of Trademark as a keyword by an Intermediary would amount to Trade Mark Infringement?’. The seminar explored whether the use of trade marks as a part of keywords, such as in their online advertisement programs by intermediaries amounts to infringement. The session delved into the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and recent rulings by the Delhi High Court interpreting liability of intermediaries viz-a-vis use of trade marks as keywords. The session discussed varying observations made by the Indian courts and discussed whether the lack of visual representation of metatags and/or keywords to consumers would still constitute trade mark use and therefore, infringement. The session concluded with a discussion on the effects and impact of such use by intermediaries, such as initial interest confusion, switch-and-bait tactics and potential contributory infringement.

The presentation can be accessed here.

Interns – Manish Kumar, Pankti Mishra, Anchal Raghuwanshi, Vibhuti Bhatt and Gautami Chakravarty have commenced their General IP Internship with the firm’s law practice.

We hope their stay in the firm during the 4 week period of their internship will be mutually enriching and that the firm and they will learn exciting things from each other!

A ‘Legal Issues Seminar – General IP’ (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Shreyak Patnaik, Associate, on ‘Whether High Courts Can Proceed with Rectification Proceedings without Staying the Initial Infringement Suit?’. The seminar explored whether the court is bound to stay a suit for infringement pending the final disposal of the rectification proceeding. The session focused on recent decisions from the Delhi High Court wherein the court has clubbed the rectification and infringement suit. The session delved into the relevant Delhi High Court IP Division Rules, and the amendments to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the “Act”) subsequent to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. The session also discussed contrary observations by the court which mention that stay of the suit is statutorily mandated, and is not within the discretion of the courts. The session concluded with a discussion on the impact of the abolishment of IPAB, and the jurisdiction of the High Courts, and whether there is a requirement to stay an infringement suit pending disposal of the rectification proceeding as mandated in Section 124 of the Act.

The presentation can be accessed here.

During last week’s PWS Session, Malveka Nautiyal, Trainee Associate, led a discussion on “Whether Granting Trademark Protection to Architectural Designs of Heritage Buildings Aligns with the Larger Public Interest?” The session started with a discussion on the feasibility of trademark protection in relation to architectural designs and images of heritage buildings. The members discussed the proposition from the perspective of publicis juris i.e. the public’s right of access to heritage buildings, and to what extent those rights would be impeded if trademark protection were to be granted to images of heritage buildings. The members explored the contours of private versus public rights against the backdrop of heritage buildings and IP protection using examples from across the world, weighing in questions of jurisdiction, scope of protection, and advantages thereof.

A ‘Legal Issues Seminar – General IP’ (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Arundathi Krishnadas, Associate, on “Can an Arbitrator Conduct Independent Research in INDRP Proceedings?”. The seminar delved into the competency of an arbitrator to conduct and rely on independent research-based findings in rendering decisions in INDRP proceedings. The seminar also discussed the extent to which Courts have permitted such independent research by an Arbitrator. The seminar drew a parallel between “limited independent research” permitted in UDRP proceedings and highlighted the lack of precedents to determine such a limit in INDRP proceedings. The session concluded with a discussion on the importance of the exercise of the principle of fair opportunity by an arbitrator in context of conducting independent research while rendering an arbitral award.

The presentation can be accessed here.