Intellectual Property Updates from India

INTRODUCTION
Dear Readers,
As we embark on the second quarter of 2023, we are
delighted to present to you our next edition of the
newsletter, focused entirely on the world of Intellectual
Property Rights. India has been making conscious efforts
in building and growing its innovation framework which is
evident from the fact that the Indian Government recently
acquired 127 patents for 6G technology. The Courts have
also been vigilant in protecting the rights of creators
and brand owners to usher the wave of innovation and
drive business growth. This is rightly evident from the
Court’s coming of age ruling in the ‘Subway v. Suberb’
case, and the recent ‘Swiggy domain name dispute’.
Simultaneously, the High Court of Delhi declaring the
stylized logo of the French luxury brand, Hermes as a
well-known trade mark also indicates the Courts sheer
eagerness in recognising and safeguarding the trans-
border reputation enjoyed by notable international
marks. This edition also tracks an interesting litigation
centred around design infringement where the Court
passed injunction in order to protect the registered
keyboard design of the Japanese company, Casio. The
judgement is likely to have a positive impact on the
existing framework concerning Industrial Design in India.
A few snippets of this edition that are worth reading
include the underlying tussle between Zee Music and
Spotify, Joan Mitchell Foundation issuing Cease and
Desist to Louis Vuitton over use of paintings in handbag
advertisements, and NFT and Metaverse related trade
mark filings of Yves Saint Laurent and Amazon. So,
without further ado, let’s dive into this edition!
We appreciate your readership and wish you happy
reading!
01of 09

DELHI HIGH COURT RULES IN FAVOUR OF CASIO IN
DESIGN INFRINGEMENT CASE
Plaintiff’s Design (Model no: SA 46/ SA 47)
Defendant’s Design (Model no: NEXUS – 32)
The High Court of Delhi (“Court”), recently, upheld an
interim order passed by an Additional District Judge
(“ADJ”) restraining the firm, Riddhi Siddhi Retail Venture
(“Defendant”) from selling and manufacturing musical
keyboards with a design deceptively similar to that of
Japanese electronics company, Casio Keisanki Kabushiki
Kaisha D/B/A Casio Computer Co. Ltd.’s keyboard
(“Plaintiff”).1
The Plaintiff is a well-known entity engaged in the
manufacture of musical keyboards. The Plaintiff is
the owner and proprietor of a registered design for
an “Electronic Keyboard” vide design registration
No. 224547, with effect from September 2009. The
registration is valid and subsisting, till September 02,
2024. The Defendant, in the present matter, argued that
the Plaintiff’s design suffers from lack of novelty and is
similar to the design of several other keyboards available
in the market.
The Court stated that by conjoint operation of Sections
22(3) and 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, lack of novelty
or originality can constitute a ground of defence against
an allegation of design piracy where the lack of novelty
or originality can constitute a ground for cancellation of
the registration granted to the design. As such, the lack
of novelty or originality has to be seen on the date of
registration of design. If a design, when registered, does
not suffer from lack of novelty or originality, the mere fact
that, after it is registered, several persons chose to copy
the said design shall not constitute a ground to cancel
the registration of the said design.
The Court further stated that the Defendant had not
produced any document to show that the design was
published prior to September 2009 or that it lacks
originality. Therefore, the Court upheld the ad interim
injunction granted by the learned ADJ, vide its order
dated June 15, 2021.
“SUBWAY” V. “SUBERB” - EXCLUSIVITY OVER WORD
‘SUB’
Subway IP LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a suit against Infinity
Foods & Ors. (“Defendants”) before the High Court of
Delhi (“Court”),2
alleging deceptive similarity between
the marks, “SUBWAY” v. “SUBERB”, “VEGGIE DELITE”
v. “VEGGIE DELICIOUS” and “SUBWAY CLUB” v. “SUB
ON A CLUB”. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants
also adopted an identical ‘green and yellow’ colour
combination on impugned mark, similar signage, similar
look and feel of the restaurants, and other merchandise
/ products available at outlets and used for publicity /
marketing.
Initially, the Defendants sought adjournment and
approached the Plaintiff for settlement and suggested
slight modifications, which the Plaintiff vehemently
rejected.
The Court relying upon the “anti-dissection” rule, held
that “SUBWAY” and “SUBERB”, in relation to ‘submarine
sandwiches’ are not deceptively similar trade marks.
The Court stated that the prefix “SUB” is publici juris
CASE ANALYSIS
02 of 09
1. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha D/B/A Casio Computer Co. Ltd. V. Riddhi
Siddhi Retail Venture, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 677
2. Subway IP LLC v. Infinity Food, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 150
Plaintiff’s Trade Marks
and other related
merchandise / products
Defendants’ Trade
Marks and other related
merchandise / products

3. Raman Kwatra and Ors. vs. KEI Industries Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 38
03 of 09
and is a common word in the food industry. The Court
further stated that the suffixes in question “WAY” and
“ERB” were neither phonetically nor visually similar in
any manner whatsoever. Further, the Plaintiff’s claims
with respect to infringement of registered trade marks,
“VEGGIE DELITE” and “SUBWAY CLUB” basis the
Defendants’ use of trade marks “VEGGIE DELICIOUS”
and “SUB ON A CLUB” respectively, were not a matter
of concern anymore since the Defendants altered the
same to “VEG LOADED REGULAR” and “TORTA CLUB”.
The Court held them not being deceptively similar with
“VEGGIE DELITE” and “SUBWAY CLUB”.
The Court further held that the “S” logos were not
deceptively, visually, or structurally similar, since the
Defendants altered their mark by changing the colour
combinationto‘redandwhite’colourcombination.Lastly,
the Court held that considering that the Defendants
made various modifications in respect of its restaurants,
no exclusivity could have been granted to the Plaintiff
on the look and feel. Accordingly, the Court refused to
grant an injunction against the Defendant vide its order
dated January 12, 2023.
Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff filed an appeal in
the said matter, wherein a Division Bench of the Court
set aside the order of the Court. While setting aside
the order of the Court, Division Bench of the Court
directed the Defendants to make various alterations in
its trade marks and branding styles. The Defendants
were directed to change the name of the restaurant to
“HUBERB” from “SUBERB”, along with the following:
i. The domain name www.suberb.in was directed to be
pulled down and deleted.
ii. The new logo of “H” was to be designed and used.
iii. The ‘red and white’ colour combination was to be
used for the “H” logo, the “HUBERB” trade mark and
for any sign boards.
iv. Instagramaccountnametobechangedto“HUBERB”.
Accordingly, the aforesaid modifications and directions
were taken on record by the Division Bench of the Court,
and subsequently the said appeal was disposed of.
APPROBATION AND REPROBATION OF THE STANCE
TAKEN BEFORE THE TRADE MARKS REGISTRY IS
NOT PERMITTED.
Raman Kwatra & Anr. (“Appellants”) filed an intra-
court appeal before the High Court of Delhi (“Court”),
challenging the order dated May 17, 2022 (“Impugned
Order”) passed by the Learned Single Judge of the
Court.3
Based on the application made by the KEI
Industries Ltd. (“Respondent”), the Appellants were
restrained from using their trade mark ‘ ’ in
relation to electrical and allied goods. T h e
Respondent alleged that the Appellants’ trade mark
infringed its already registered word mark, ‘KEI’ and
device mark, ‘ ’. The injunction was granted
based on the deceptive similarity between
the Appellants’ and Respondent’s respective trade
marks. Moreover, the rival marks were being used in
respect of similar and allied goods.
The Single Bench of the Court had disregarded the
Respondent’s response to the examination report issued
by the Trade Marks Registry. At the examination stage,
upon being confronted with the Appellants’ trade mark,
the Respondent argued that its mark was “distinctive
of its service” and because of the rival businesses
being different, “there was no likelihood of confusion”
between the rival marks. In light of the same, the
Appellants asserted that the Respondent must not claim
the contrary now. The Single Bench of the Court rejected
this argument, holding that just because the Respondent
had taken a stand at the registration stage, that assertion
could not stop it from exercising its statutory and natural
rights at a later date.
The Division Bench (“DB”) of the Court, in the appeal,
apart from noting the inherent dissimilarity in the rival
goods, also dismissed the ruling of the Learned Single
Judge. It observed that the Respondent shall not be
allowed to make representation and assertions contrary
to the ones made in a proceeding before the Trade
Marks Registry. The DB held that once a party has made
an assertion – that “its mark is dissimilar to a cited
mark” – and obtained a registration on the basis of that
assertion, it is not entitled to obtain an interim injunction
against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the grounds
that the “mark is deceptively similar” to its own. In other
words, when seeking registration before the Trade
Marks Registry, a party must be held to its statements
and cannot be permitted to make a “factual”, contrary
assertion subsequently before the court.
Accordingly, the DB set aside the Impugned Order, vide
its order dated January 06, 2023. With respect to the
Respondent’s claim of infringement of its trade marks

04 of 09
on grounds of dissimilar goods, the DB remanded the
matter to the Learned Single Judge for a prima facie
examination.
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI EMPHASISES ON THE
IMPORTANCE OF DETAILED REASONED ORDER IN
CASE A PATENT APPLICATION IS REFUSED.
In the recent case of Dolby International AB v. The
Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs,4
before the
High Court of Delhi (“Court”), the Court deliberated
over a dispute concerning the grant of a patent to Dolby
International AB (“Plaintiff”) for a technology used in
audio encoding and decoding.
The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
(“Defendant”) passed an order dated January 29,
2021 (“Impugned Order”) refusing to grant the
patent to Plaintiff, citing prior art and lack of inventive
step. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Plaintiff
challenged the same before the Court. Upon perusing
the same, the Court noted that it was impossible to
understand as to where the reference to the claims for
the patent application began, what part referred to the
First Examination Report and where one could find the
reasoning given by the Defendant.
In passing its judgement on March 14, 2023, the Court
noted that the Impugned Order must be set aside as
it cannot be said to satisfy even the most fundamental
requisites of an order adjudicating on a claim for
registration of a patent. It further held that the Defendant
had not properly considered the evidence presented
by the Plaintiff and had not given sufficient reasons for
refusing the patent.
The Court further laid emphasis on the importance of
patents and stated that “…A patent is meant to be a
recognition of the innovative step that has been put
into a crafting of an invention. Inventions increment the
state of existing scientific knowledge and, thereafter, are
of inestimable public interest. Any decision, whether to
grant or refuse a patent has, therefore, to be informed
by due application of mind, which must be reflected in
the decision. Orders refusing applications for grant of a
patent cannot be mechanically passed, as has been done
in the present case”. The Court taking cognizance of the
situation, thus, directed the Defendant to re-examine
the patent application and to provide a reasoned order
within two months from the date of judgement.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT GRANTS INTERIM RELIEF
TO THE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRAR, GODADDY
AGAINST NOTIFYING SWIGGY IN CASE THERE IS
REGISTRATION OF AN INFRINGING DOMAIN NAME.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited (“Plaintiff”) filed a
suit before the Bombay High Court (“Court”) contending
infringement of its registered trade mark, “Swiggy”.5
The Plaintiff was informed that someone, claiming to be
an employee of the Plaintiff, has been duping innocent
persons, like Mr. Aanit Awattam alias Aanit Gupta & Ors
(“Defendants”) into parting with various sums of money
on the false promise offering them a place on the Swiggy
Instamart Platform. The Plaintiff found that the infringers
were also using infringing domain names i.e., btpl.info
and swiggyinstamart.co.in.
OnNovember29,2022,theCourtdirectedDomainName
Registrar, GoDaddy (“Applicant”) to firstly, suspend the
infringing domain names and secondly, not register any
domain name containing the Plaintiff’s marks without
prior authorization. The Applicant approached the Court
seeking modification and part recall of the order dated
November 29, 2022 (“Impugned Order”), in respect of
the second direction.
The Applicant submitted that compliance of such a
direction is not possible for the Applicant since the
underlying technology of registration of domain names,
is an automated process without any manual intervention.
Thus, there is no way in which the Applicant, as a
Domain Name Registrar, can assess the legitimacy of any
domain name chosen for registration by a prospective
Registrant. It was submitted that in such a situation, the
Impugned Order granted in terms of specific prayer,
being of dynamic nature, was beyond the capacity of the
Applicant to implement.
In support of its claim, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff
submitted that the Applicant in the case, Snapdeal
Private Limited v. GoDaddy.com LLC,6
before the High
Court of Delhi had said that it could potentially prevent
the registration of domain names containing Snapdeal’s
registered trade mark. Hence, it cannot claim now that
this was technologically impossible. The Plaintiff also
4. Dolby International Ab v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs,
2023 SCC OnLine Del 1521
5. Bundl Technologies Private Limited v. Aanit Awattam and Ors, 2023 SCC
OnLine Bom 227.
6. Snapdeal Private Limited v. GoDaddy.com LLC, 2022 SCC OnLine Del
2044.

05 of 09
contended that the Applicant is driven to not lose out
on profit as the prospective registrant can go to other
domain name registrars if the Applicant does not
register the infringing domain names. Thus, the Court
vide its order dated January 23, 2023, observed that the
Applicant must use an alternative algorithm to prevent
future registration of infringing domain names, despite
the same being a cumbersome process and directed
the Applicant to inform the Plaintiff about each occasion
where registration of a domain name containing the
mark, ‘SWIGGY’ is granted.
Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant filed an appeal
against the order dated January 23, 2023. The Division
Bench of the Court, vide its order dated February 28,
2023,7
admitted the appeal on the grounds that the
matter requires further consideration and passed an
interim order of stay to the extent the Applicant was
directed to notify registration of any domain name with
the term, ‘SWIGGY’.
DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT INTERMEDIARY
IS NOT BOUND TO ACT ON THE COMPLAINTS OF
INFRINGEMENT UNDER RULE 3 OF IT RULES, 2021
The High Court of Delhi (“Court”) in the matter of
Samridhi Enterprises v Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Ors,8
ruled that there is no requirement for an intermediary
to take an action against infringers under Rule 3 of
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules”).
The case before the Court was brought by Samridhi
Enterprises (“Plaintiff”), a manufacturer and seller
of vehicle coverings against Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd
(“Defendant”) and others for allegedly imitating the
style, appearance, and feel of the car covers that it was
selling on the Defendant’s platform. The Plaintiff claimed
that it had been producing and selling vehicle coverings
on the Defendant’s platform under the trade marks “UK
Blue” and “Autofact” since 2018.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that
the Defendant violated the statutory requirements of
the IT Rules, by failing to delete the allegedly infringing
listings from its website after receiving notice from the
Plaintiff. Additionally, it was claimed by the Plaintiff that
Defendant’s grievance officer did not follow Rule 3(2)(a)
of IT Rules, which requires that the officer recognises
customer complaints within 24 hours and resolves them
within 15 days.
The Court rejected the argument, pointing out that Rule
3(1) of IT Rules requires an intermediary to publish its
rules, regulations, privacy policy, and user agreement
prior to any individual having access to or using its
computer resource. The Court further held that only
complaints about violations of the provision of Rule 3 are
contemplated under Rule 3(2)(a). There is no requirement
under Rule 3 of IT Rules for an intermediary to take any
action against the accused infringers after receiving a
complaint about such actions on its port.
The Court observed that under Rule (1)(b) of IT Rules,
the intermediary is only obligated to advise the user
to abstain from hosting or showing infringing material.
The clause does not stipulate that the intermediary
must take any specific action in response to a notice of
infringement, much less take any specific action against
the intermediary.
7. GoDaddy.com LLC v. Bundl Technologies Private Limited, Commercial
Appeal (L) No.5084 of 2023.
8. Order dated March 01, 2023, in CS (COMM) 63 of 2023

06 of 09
SNIPPETS
SPORADIC TRADE MARK USE DOES NOT QUALIFY
AS CONTINUOUS USE UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999.
TTK Prestige Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) had filed a suit against KK
and Company (“Defendant”) before the High Court of
Delhi (“Court”) in respect of infringement of its trade
mark ‘Prestige’.9
The Plaintiff has been in the business
of producing, advertising, and selling household
equipment, such as “pressure cookers” and “gas
stoves,” under the brand/trade mark “PRESTIGE” since
1995. The court observed that if defendant is allowed
to produce and market products carrying the contested
brand, the Plaintiff will continue to sustain irreversible
harm to its goodwill and reputation.
The Defendant claimed to be “continuous user’ of
trade mark “PRESTIGE”. The Court vide its order dated
February 20, 2023, while restraining the Defendant from
using the trade mark held that the Defendant failed to
produce any supporting documents in respect of its
claim as “continuous user” and therefore the Defendant
has at best shown sporadic use of the trade mark, which
would not qualify it as “continuous user” in terms of
Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
INDIA SETS ITS SIGHTS ON 6G: 127 PATENTS
ALREADY SECURED, REVEALS TELECOM MINISTER.
The Indian Government has already acquired 127
patents for 6G technology and is actively trying to
create it. This information, which was made public by the
telecom minister, suggests that India is acting proactively
to maintain its technological lead. The trials for 6G
technology are presently being carried out globally and
are anticipated to be even quicker and more effective
than 5G. India is putting itself in a situation to be a
major participant by obtaining rights relating to 6G. The
minister also emphasised that because data protection
and communication are problems that affect many
different industries, the Indian Government has chosen
to create laws that are technology neutral.
SPOTIFY SPARKS CONTROVERSY IN INDIA, PULLS
ZEE MUSIC’S CATALOGUE IN LICENSING DISPUTE.
We all have been curious to know that why Spotify
AB, a subsidiary of Spotify Technology S.A (“Spotify”)
removed some of the best playlists from its app.
However, the answer for the same lies in this licensing
dispute. Spotify has removed its entire catalogue from
Zee Entertainment Enterprises (“Zee Music”) after
attempts to extend their licensing arrangement were
unsuccessful. As per the report on Billboard, the Spotify
team has stated that “Spotify and Zee Music have been
unable to reach a licencing agreement.” Spotify has
tried to come up with innovative methods to reach an
agreement with Zee Music throughout these talks, and
they will keep negotiating in good faith in the hopes of
quickly coming to an equally satisfactory conclusion.
THE WEEKND SETTLES COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT OVER
HIT TRACK, ‘CALL OUT MY NAME’.
The Weeknd’s song, “Call Out My Name” from his
2018 album, My Dear Melancholy was the subject of a
copyright infringement lawsuit in 2021. The Weeknd,
along with co-defendants Nicolás Jaar and Frank Dukes,
were accused of infringing on the producers Suniel
Fox and Henry Strange’s song “Vibeking”. The two
songs were “strikingly and/or substantially similar, if not
identical,” according to the complaint, which noted a
number of purported similarities. Attorneys for Fox and
Strange announced in court on March 17, 2023, that a
settlement had been struck between the two parties.
The Weeknd’s agents and the producers’ lawyers have
been contacted by Pitchfork for comment.
UK COURT DELIVERS KEY RULING IN INTERDIGITAL
V. LENOVO, CLARIFYING FRAND LICENSING TERMS.
The judgment passed by the UK High Court (“Court”)
in InterDigital v. Lenovo,10
is a landmark judgment of
the Court instituting a modern global Fair, Reasonable,
and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) rate for Standard
Essential Patents. Lenovo stated that it has won the
continuing legal battle with InterDigital over licence fees
for 3G, 4G, and 5G technologies. This ruling strengthens
InterDigitals’ ongoing commitment as an amenable
licensee and supports the licence rate Lenovo pushed for.
This ruling confirms FRAND’s essential role in promoting
equitable and transparent licencing procedures for
standardised technologies, which makes it possible for
consumers all over the world to access more inexpensive
innovation.
9. TTK Prestige Ltd. v KK and Company Delhi Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CS (Comm) 864
of 2022
10. InterDigital v Lenovo [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat).

11. Hermes International and Anr v. Crimzon Fashion Accessories Private Limited,
2023 SCC OnLine Del 883
07 of 09
GENERAL MOTORS FILES NFT TRADE MARKS FOR
CHEVROLET & CADILLAC
American multinational automotive manufacturing
company, General Motors LLC (“General Motors”) files
for Non-Fungible Tokens (“NFT”) trade mark applications
for its renowned automobile brands, Chevrolet and
Cadillac. General Motors’ February 16, 2023, filing with
the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office, done
in February 2003, specifies that the marks will be used
for downloadable media, specifically collective artwork,
text, audio, and video through the use of NFTs. The
company has already issued NFTs for both of these
brands. In October 2022, Cadillac auctioned NFTs to
commemorate the 120th anniversary of the company. In
June 2022, Chevrolet tried to auction a digital collectible
representing the 2023 Corvette Z06.
JOAN MITCHELL FOUNDATION ISSUES CEASE
AND DESIST TO LOUIS VUITTON OVER USE OF
PAINTINGS IN HANDBAG ADVERTISEMENTS
Painting
Hand bag advertisement
The Joan Mitchell Foundation (“Foundation”) has
accused luxury fashion company, Louis Vuitton of
reproducing, without permission, at least three works by
the ‘Abstract Expressionist’ in an advertising campaign
featuring actress Léa Seydoux for handbags that retail
up to $10,500.
The Foundation sent a cease and desist letter to
Louis Vuitton demanding that the company withdraws
their campaign and give a full accounting of the
advertisements purchased along with an apology. This
interestingly comes post Louis Vuitton making multiple
attempts to the Foundation, to request permission
to use Joan Mitchell’s works in an upcoming series of
ads. The Foundation, however, repeatedly turned down
Louis Vuitton’s requests due to a long-standing policy
that images of Joan Mitchell’s work be used chiefly
for educational purposes and have extremely limited
commercial use.
STYLIZED LOGO “H” OF THE FRENCH LUXURY
BRAND HERMES DECLARED AS A WELL-KNOWN
TRADE MARK.
The leading French luxury brand, Hermes International
(“Plaintiff”) brought a suit against Crimson Fashion
Accessories Private Limited (“Defendant”) before the
High Court of Delhi (“Court”),11
alleging infringement
of its trade mark, , used in its range of
luxury footwear. The Plaintiff also sought
declaration of its mark as a well-known mark. The Court
ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and restrained the Defendant
from using the Plaintiff’s trade mark.
Subsequently, considering the evidence of use and
supporting documents placed on record by the Plaintiff
to indicate that the criteria with respect to a well-known
mark stood satisfied, the Court vide its judgement dated
February 8, 2023, declared the stylized logo,
as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(z)
(g) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
HERMÈS PREVAILS IN NFT TRADE MARK
INFRINGEMENT TRIAL
Hermès International (“Hermès”) won the lawsuit against
the artist, Mason Rothschild (“Rothchild”), establishing
that Rothschild’s sale of the ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs infringed

08 of 09
the rights of Hermès in the ‘Birkin’ trade mark. The
Manhattan Jury also awarded Hermès damages
amounting to $130,000. The Jury found that Rothschild’s
NFTs were not a ‘protected speech’ under the First
Amendment. It opined that the ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs are
more likely to fall within the category of consumer
products, and not as Business Art, as Rothschild intended
to portray them as. Hermès argued that Rothschild’s
NFTs have hindered their plans to expand their products
in the Metaverse. Rothschild’s motion to dismiss the case
on the basis of the ‘Rogers’ Test was denied, as well.
YVES SAINT LAURENT, THE FRENCH LUXURY
FASHION HOUSE AND AMAZON ENTER THE
METAVERSE AND NFT SPACE.
Yves Saint Laurent filed NFT and Metaverse-related
trade mark applications for its name and logo at the
United States Patent and Trade Mark Office (“USPTO”)
in January 2023. Basis a review of the filings, Yves Saint
Laurent intends to launch NFTs in relation to perfumes,
toiletries, cosmetics, make-up, skin care products, etc.,
for use of the same in the metaverse. The filings also
imply that Yves Saint Laurent intends to make direct
sales through retail stores established in the metaverse
that sell these virtual goods. On the other hand, Amazon
also recently filed two trade mark applications ‘IROBOT’
and ‘ROOMBA’ for ‘robots featuring AI’, ‘robots for
surveillance and security’, and ‘retail stores for robotic
machines featuring AI’ and entered the AI space.
VELLORE’S ‘SPINY BRINJAL
’ AND
RAMANATHAPURAM’S ‘MUNDU CHILLIES’ HAVE
BEEN IDENTIFIED AS GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATORS.
Two new products - Vellore Spiny Brinjal and
Ramanathapuram Mundu Chilli – of Tamil Nadu, have
beengrantedtheGeographicalIndication(“GI”)tagbasis
their unique physical and geographical characteristics.
Vellore Spiny Brinjal is a rare, thorny native breed grown
in Vellore district. The vegetable weighing 40 grams,
is oval and has a glossy shade of violet and pink with
a tinge of green. It has a shelf life of three days under
room temperature, and about eight days in refrigerated
surroundings. Ramanathapuram Mundu Chilli is a round
shaped chilli popular in South Indian cuisine which has
a dark shiny and thick skin and is a directly sown rain-
fed crop grown. With the addition of this, 45 products of
Tamil Nadu have earned GI recognition.
KERELA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY EFFORTS HELP
OBTAIN ONATTUKARA SESAME GI TAG
The sesame growing in the Onattukara region of Central
Travancore has been granted a GI tag, after 3-year-long
efforts by the Kerela Agriculture University (“KAU”).
The efforts to facilitate the marketing of the Onattukara
Sesame on an international level is to reverse the
declining trend of sesame farming in the region. The
KAU researched and discovered that the Onattukara
Sesame has higher nutritional value that helps maintain
health. In addition to the efforts for the GI tag, the
agriculture department has also encouraged farming of
the Onattukara sesame by way of financial assistance to
farmers, and other incentives. They opine that the grant
of the GI tag to the Onattukara Sesame will help increase
its popularity and value in the market.
‘KHORASANI IMLI’ OR THE FRUIT OF THE ‘BAOBAB’
FROM MADHYA PRADESH APPLIED FOR THE GI
TAG.
Madhya Pradesh has applied for GI tag for the ‘Khorasani
Imli’ or the ‘Fruit of the Baobab’. It is a rare species of
a medicinal tree found in the Dhar district of Madhya
Pradesh. The tree is light green in colour and bears sour
and sweet tasting fruit with medicinal properties. The
juice and dried tree bark of the Baobab tree are used
for treating diabetes and other ailments. It is believed
that its presence in the villages of Mandav area of Dhar
district may be as old as 500 years. According to the
horticulture department, more than 1,000 Baobab trees
are estimated to be in Mandu area, the only place in
India where it is found in such an enormous number.
GI TAGS FOR ‘KAVINDHAPADI NATTU SAKKARAI’,
‘RAMNAD CHITHIRAIKAR RICE’ AND ‘SALEM
KANNADI KATHIRI’ FILED BEFORE THE GI REGISTRY
IN CHENNAI.
The Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Marketing Board has
sought GI tags for Kavindhapadi Nattu Sakkarai, Ramnad
Chithiraikar Rice and Salem Kannadi Kathiri by filing the
requisite applications before the GI Registry in Chennai.
According to the details provided in the GI applications,
Kavindhapadi Nattu Sakkarai is a type of country sugar
which is found in Erode, Kavindapadi. Simultaneously, it
provides that Ramnad Chithiraikar Rice has been one of
the early existing red rice varieties in Thirupullani tracts

09 of 09
of Ramnad district, and Salem Kannadi Kathiri being a
type of brinjal which is identified by its glossy purple
colour and having thin skin with high amount of flesh.
NO UNAUTHORIZED USAGE OF RAJNIKANTH’S
PERSONALITY RIGHTS
Actor Rajinikanth, recently, issued a public notice, which
states that legal action will be initiated against anyone
who uses the actor’s name, voice, photograph, caricature,
or AI-generated image for commercial gain without his
explicit permission. The purpose of this public notice
is to protect the actor’s copyright and prevent others
from using his identity to entice customers to purchase
products or services without authorization. The notice
asserts that only the actor has the right to control the
commercial use of his personality, name, voice, image,
and other unique characteristics associated with him.
This notice was issued in response to the discovery that
many platforms and product manufacturers have been
misusing the actor’s name, images, and likeness to
gain popularity and entice consumers to purchase their
products or use their services.
INTERNET ARCHIVE LOSES GROUND-BREAKING
COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT OVER E-BOOK LENDING
DURING PANDEMIC.
The book publishers, Hachette, HarperCollins, John
Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House (“Plaintiff”)
in June 2020 sued Internet Archive (“Defendant”) before
District Court in USA, for their “National Emergency
Library program”, which allowed consumers to borrow
e-books in large quantities during the COVID-19
pandemic in 2020, when movement was prohibited by
lockdowns.
This internet archive allowed users to use over a million
books and did not maintain a one-book-per-reader
ratio. The District Court Judge observed that Plaintiff’s
viewpoint is right as Defendant’s site was just making
“derivative” works by just turning books into e-books
and distributing them. Defendant does not have any
right to make books available like that.
INDIA RANKS 42ND IN GLOBAL IP INDEX: HOW
CAN THE COUNTRY BOOST ITS IP STRATEGY?
India is poised to become a leader for developing
nations looking to change their economies via IP-
driven innovation, according to the International IP
Index published by the US Chambers of Commerce,
which puts India 42nd
among 55 top global economies.
India is taking steps to enhance copyright-infringing
content. India has reportedly maintained ongoing
significant efforts in copyright infringement via the
granting of “dynamic” injunction orders, according to
the report, which encompasses everything from patent
and copyright legislation to the capacity to monetize IP
assets and the ratification of international agreements.

www.induslaw.com
BENGALURU
101, 1st Floor, “Embassy Classic”
# 11
Vittal Mallya Road
Bengaluru 560 001

T: +91 80 4072 6600
F: +91 80 4072 6666
E: bangalore@induslaw.com
HYDERABAD
204, Ashoka Capitol
, Road No. 2
Banjarahills

Hyderabad 500 034
T: +91 40 4026 4624

F: +91 40 4004 0979
E: hyderabad@induslaw.com
CHENNAI
#11, Venkatraman Street, T Nagar,
Chennai - 600017 India
T: +91 44 4354 6600
F: +91 44 4354 6600
E: chennai@induslaw.com
DELHI NCR
2nd Floor, Block D
The MIRA,
Mathura Road, Ishwar Nagar
New Delhi 110 065
T: +91 11 4782 1000
F: +91 11 4782 1097
E: delhi@induslaw.com
9th Floor, Block-B
DLF Cyber Park
Udyog Vihar Phase - 3
Sector - 20
Gurugram 122 008
T: +91 12 4673 1000
E: gurugram@induslaw.com
MUMBAI
1502B, 15th Floor
Tower – 1C,
One Indiabulls Centre

Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel
Mumbai – 400013
T: +91 22 4920 7200

F: +91 22 4920 7299
E: mumbai@induslaw.com
#81-83, 8th Floor
A Wing, Mittal Court
Jamnalal Bajaj Marg
Nariman Point
Mumbai – 400021
T: +91 22 4007 4400
E: mumbai@induslaw.com
OUR OFFICES
DISCLAIMER
This newsletter is for information purposes only and is not an advisory of a medical or legal nature. Nothing contained herein is, purports to
be, or is intended as legal/medical advice or a legal/medical opinion, and you should seek advice before you act on any information or view
expressed herein. We make no representation or warranty, express or implied, in any manner whatsoever in connection with the contents of
this alert. No recipient of this alert should construe this alert as an attempt to solicit business in any manner whatsoever.

Intellectual Property Updates from India

More Related Content

Similar to Intellectual Property Updates from India (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Intellectual Property Updates from India