Beyonce Trademarks her daughter’s name
Introduction
Beyoncé’s recent legal victory in securing the trademark for her daughter Blue Ivy’s name marks a significant milestone in a prolonged 12-year battle encountered by various complex and legal challenges. This article delves into the intricacies of the trademark process, the implications of this victory, and the broader context surrounding trademarks of celebrity’s names.
Madras High Court dismisses Applications from Netflix India in Dhanush Nayanthara Copyright Dispute
Introduction
In a significant development, the Madras High Court dismissed applications filed by Netflix seeking to revoke copyright infringement suit filed by the actor Dhanush which was allowed by the Hon’ble Court against Nayanthara, Vignesh Sivan, and others. The case revolves around allegations of unauthorized use of Behind-the-Scenes footage from the 2015 movie ‘Naanum Rowdy Dhaan’ in the Netflix documentary Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale. The Court deliberated on provisions of the Copyright Act, Clause 12 of Letters Patent Act, as well as the Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Additionally, it was highlighted that the Wunderbar Films Private Limited (founded by Dhanush) had not acted against the uploading of a similar picture on social media earlier in 2020. Their counsel contended that the cause of action arose only in the case of copyright infringement and this case was with respect to unauthorized use of the footage, they also added that an email was sent to Nayanthara and team as soon as the trailer was released, requesting them to desist from using the footage. However, the suit was filed only after the documentary’s release, as it was then that the extent of the infringement became apparent.
Reverse Passing Off: Embossed Beer Bottles
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the present case, Appellant was a manufacturer and seller of beer under the trademark ‘STOK’. The glass bottles used by the Appellant for selling its beer had label affixed with stickers bearing statutory details along with Appellant’s trademark ‘STOK’. The bottles were embossed with ‘panda device’. It is the case of the Appellant that the Respondents who are also manufactures and sellers of beer, were reusing the beer bottles of the Appellant for bottling their beer. However, the beer bottles that were reused contained the embossed trademark ‘STOK’ and the ‘Panda device’ which belongs to the Appellant thereby infringing its trademark and passing off Respondents’ beer as that of the Appellant’s.
Protecting the Rooftop: Philip Morris Secures Permanent Injunction
Introduction
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s recent decision, in the case of Philip Morris Brands SARL vs M/s Rahul Pan Shop & Ors, is a significant ruling delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal on November 26, 2024, before the High Court of Delhi. Philip Morris Brands SARL (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiff’) is a subsidiary of Philip Morris International Inc, an American multinational company and a global leader in the tobacco industry. The Plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement against several unscrupulous manufacturers, sellers, stockists and distributors selling counterfeit products of the Plaintiff’s reputed ‘MARLBORO ADVANCE COMPACT’ brand in India. These infringing entities are associated with a proprietorship concern named ‘M/s Rahul Pan Shop’, which is involved in selling cigarettes and other tobacco related products. The said shop is malafidely using the Plaintiff’s ‘MARLBORO’ word mark and ‘ROOFTOP’ device mark 
to pass off its products as that of the Plaintiff’s, and thereafter, sell fake/counterfeit cigarettes to unwary and unaware customers, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s intellectual property.
Candid vs. Candex-B Judgment: a Conundrum
Brief Facts
In the present case, Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports (first respondent) had filed Application No.749366 dated March 21, 1997 (on a proposed to be used basis), seeking registration of the trademark ‘CANDEX-B’ for pharmaceutical products in class 5. The mark was published in the Trade Marks Journal on August 16, 2007. Subsequently, the appellant, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed Opposition No. 716540 against the said application on January 22, 2008, inter alia on the basis that the said mark is similar to their prior mark ‘CANDID’. Subsequently, the Counter Statement was filed by the respondent on April 11, 2008. Subsequently, after the prosecution of the application and the hearing in respect of the captioned matter, by the impugned order dated July 26, 2013 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks (second respondent), the opposition was rejected and the mark was granted registration.
Interpreting “Diagonistic” in the realm of Section 3(i)
INTRODUCTION
In this article, the Hon’ble Madras High Court interprets the term “Diagnostic” in light of section 3(i) of the Indian Patents Act. This judgment clarifies the most perplexing questions such as whether the term “Diagnostic” should be limited to “in-vivo” or “in-vitro” diagnostic method, whether the term “Diagnostis” should be construed as a form of treatment, and whether the term screening would be qualified as diagnostic in the purview of section 3(i). This judgment outlines the steps to recognize and distinguish patentable from non-patentable matter, aiding both inventors and the Indian Patent Office in identifying patentable subject matter under section 3(i) of the Indian Patents Act.