Legal Reference Library

High Court of Delhi Louis Vuitton v. Gaurav Bhatia and Ors. MANU/DE/1443/2017 23.05.2017 Intellectual Property Rights Damages have to be actual and not superfluous, Courts are not supposed to do guess work and grant damages Present suit has been filed by Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against Defendants, restraining them from infringing its trademark, copyright and also from passing off goods of Plaintiff as that of theirs and for rendition of accounts and damages. It is submitted that, act of Defendant offering counterfeit products of Plaintiff which are identical to product of Plaintiff amounts to infringement of its trademark.  Suit has been filed by a duly authorized person. Various documents showing registration of trademark in favour of Plaintiff proves that, Plaintiff is registered owner of trademark Louis Vuitton and logo "Toile Monogram" pattern. Documents on record also conclusively show that, Defendants 1 and 2 have been indulg...

The Supreme Court in International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) vs. Aditya Pandey & Ors, has upheld a Delhi High Court order which had held that event organisers need not secure a licence from lyricists and musicians for playing the song in public even after it has paid for the broadcasting of the song to sound recording company. The Supreme Court has upheld the Delhi High Court order in view of the fact that the suit was filed in 2006, before introduction Sub-Section 10 of Section 19 of the Copyright Act.

The Bombay high court has said it is inaccurate to suggest that merely viewing an illicit copy of a film is a punishable offence under the Copyright Act. "The offence is not in viewing, but in making a prejudicial distribution, a public exhibition or letting for sale or hire without appropriate permission copyright-protected material," Justice Gautam Patel said. He asked Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to drop the line "'viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating' a particular film is a penal offence" from the 'error message' and directed them to display a more generic message on URLS to be blocked for infringement of copyright. He made the observation in an order last month when it was pointed out that an ISP had displayed a message that had sent viewers in a tizzy. The HC had recently directed ISPs to block several URLs on a plea by producers of the film Dishoom+ against piracy. The court also directed ISPs to place an 'error message...

The Supreme Court has held that no copyright exists on the "title" of a literary work while quashing a criminal case against the producer of a Bollywood movie. A bench comprising justices MB Lokur and SA Bobde passed the order on an appeal filed by Krishika Lulla and others against an order of the Bombay high court which had refused to quash a complaint filed by writer Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta. "No copyright subsists in the title of a literary work and a plaintiff or a complainant is not entitled to relief on such basis except in an action for passing off or in respect of a registered trademark comprising such titles. CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 258 & 259 OF 2013, KRISHIKA LULLA & ORS.  vs SHYAM VITHALRAO DEVKATTA & ANR.              …. RESPONDENTS, dated October 15, 2015

1)CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10643-10644 OF 2010, Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr. 2)Just Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. vs Advance Magazine Publishers Inc (CA Nos 10643-10644/2010 with CA No 4912/2015 @ SLP (C) No 8253/2013) The Supreme Court, on 1 July 2015 has dismissed the appeals filed by the Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (IPRS) and Advance Magazine Publishers Inc (Advance Magazine) against orders of the High Court of Delhi, and held that if a plaintiff is residing or carrying on business at a place where the cause of action has also arisen, either wholly or in part, it has to file suit at that place. Both cases concerned the place of institution of the suit - the IPRS case is related to Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 (Copyright Act), while the Advance Magazine case is related to Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 (TM Act),