2022: The Year in Intellectual Property Law (Volume 2)

The Indian courts have pronounced several important judgments pertaining to Intellectual Property Law in the year 2022. We have compiled a list of cases relevant to the Copyright, Trademark, and Patent domains. Here are the highlights of the cases: –

Copyright –

  • Knit Pro International Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022) – The Supreme Court ruled that an offence of infringement of copyright or any other right conferred under the Copyright Act, 1956 (as punishable under Section 63) is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
  • Neetu Singh and Anr Vs. Telegram FZ LLC and Ors. [CS (COMM) 282/2020] – The Delhi HC held that its jurisdiction could not be overruled on the basis that the servers of the infringing party (the Telegram App in this case) are situated overseas.

Trademark –

  • Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Vs. DWD Pharmaceuticals [CS (COMM) 328/2022] – The Delhi HC provided an ad-interim relief to the plaintiff considering the deceptive similarity in the marks and since the plaintiff had been using the mark “ZEST” before the defendant.
  • Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. Vs. B Vijaya Sai and Others (Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2022) – The Supreme Court applied the fundamental principle of statutory interpretation (to interpret provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999) and held that the defendant’s use of the mark “SAI RENAISSANCE” amounts to passing off and accordingly upheld the trial court’s order granting a permanent injunction.
  • Pernod Ricard India Private Limited Vs. Frost Falcon Distilleries Limited [IA 2821/2021 in CS (COMM) 94/2021] – Observing that in a passing-off case, relief is granted to protect the product whereas, in a case of infringement, the relief is intended to protect the mark, the Delhi HC held that in the present case, the defendants were passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff.
  • Bunge India Pvt Ltd Vs. Hatsun Agro Product Limited (MANU/TM/0002/2022) – The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks held that Rule 34 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017 provides an extra route to the trademark applicants whereby, following the filing of an application and payment of the necessary charges, the procedure of application (i.e. expedited application) would be swiftly followed according to the applicable rules and is not limited to only the examination stage.

Patent –

  • Novartis AG Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs [CA (COMM IPD-PAT) 12/2022] – The Delhi HC held that in the present case, the parent application dealt with a claim under three specific compounds whereas the divisional application formed part of a larger nature of the claim, and hence there was no reason for the Indian Patent Office to refuse the divisional application on the ground of duplicity of claim with the parent application.
  • Sotefin SA Vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society and Research Center & Ors. [CS (COMM) 327/2021] – The Delhi HC held that any patent protected outside India will not be recognized and protected in India and if a product violates an Indian patent, it will not be allowed in India even though it is patented in another country.
  • Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr Vs. The Controller of Patents & Ors. [CO (COMM IPD-PAT) 3/2021]; Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh Vs. The Controller of Patents & Anr. [CO (COMM IPD-PAT) 1/2022]; Elta Systems Ltd Vs. The controller of Patents & Anr. [CA (COMM IPD-PAT) 169/2022] – The Delhi HC ruled on the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts following the Tribunal Reforms Act in the three cases, which involved the revocation of patents and an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.