Madan B. Lokur
4 IP cases indexed. Covers copyright, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
M/S Phonographic Performance Ltd. v.M/S Radio Mid Day (West) India Ltd.
The Appellant (PPL), a non-profit organization administering broadcasting rights, challenged orders passed by the Copyright Board regarding compulsory licensing fees payable by the Respondent (Radio Mid Day). The appeal primarily focused on procedural grievances related to evidence and documentation before the Board. The High Court upheld the preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable but partially set aside the Copyright Board's order concerning the admissibility of documents.
Mukesh Khadaria (Trading as M/s Aggarwal Udyog) and Ram Plaster v.DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, confirming the injunction granted against them. The court found that the appellants were passing off their plaster of Paris as belonging to DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited because they used the prominent trademark 'Shriram' on their packaging. Applying the test of overall visual impression and likelihood of confusion among consumers, the court ruled in favor of DCM, emphasizing that mere dissimilarities do not negate the deceptive nature of the trade practice.
Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. v.Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Soongachi Tea Industries, granting an interim injunction against Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. The court found that despite Sona Spices' prior use of the mark for spices, they had not established a prima facie case regarding their use of 'Sona' for tea before 1993. Given the Defendant's long-standing and substantial business in Sona tea, the balance of convenience lay with protecting the existing market player.
Dr. Reckeweg And Co. Gmbh Through ... v.Mr. S.M. Sharma Managing Director ...
Dr. Reckeweg And Co. Gmbh sought an injunction against Mr. S.M. Sharma for allegedly infringing their copyrights related to homeopathic medicines. The core dispute centered on the Defendants' use of the alphanumeric series L-1 to L-75, which was identical in description and formulation to the Plaintiffs' copyrighted R-series products. The court found that despite minor changes in the catalogue, the cumulative evidence demonstrated a clear attempt by the Defendants to pass off their medicines as those of the Plaintiffs.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.