Abhishek Kumar v. Union Of India Through Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors.

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 1/2021 & I.A. 9070-9073/2021

Abhishek Kumar filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act seeking to expunge the copyright registration of the 'Turbo Plus' label, which was registered as an artistic work. The petitioner also sought the suspension of this registration's effect to protect against potential infringement threats. Given the ongoing proceedings before the Trademark Registry regarding the cancellation of a search certificate, the court renotified the matter for further hearing.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 1/2021 & I.A. 9070-9073/2021
Judge(s)
Anu Malhotra

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Abhishek Kumar vs Union Of India Through Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS (COMM) 459/2021, I.As.12185/2021

RICA S.P.A.vsJATIN HEMENDRABHAI VORA TRADING AS M/S PARUL MARKETING & ANR.

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, RICA S.P.A., to file a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages related to trademark infringement and passing off. The core dispute involves the defendant's attempt to register the similar mark "REAL RICA Wax" for identical cosmetic products used by the plaintiff under the registered trademark RICA. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed trademark until the suit is fully adjudicated.

patentFAO No. 472/2011

Levi Strauss & CompanyvsNizami Garments

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Levi Strauss & Company against Nizami Garments in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the deceptive similarity of the defendant's use of 'Levi's' marks on apparel. Consequently, the existing order denying an injunction was set aside, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize all infringing goods and relevant business records from the defendant's premises.

patentCS(COMM) 576/2021

The Foundry Visionmongers LimitedvsMesmor Studio Private Limited

The Foundry Visionmongers Limited filed a suit against Mesmor Studio Private Limited alleging rampant piracy and unauthorized use of its specialized animation software, including NUKE, NUKE X, and NUKE STUDIO. The plaintiff asserted ownership of copyright in these 'Computing Programs,' which are integral to the film and television industry's visual effects. Based on technical evidence showing 5059 infringement hits across at least 36 computer systems, the court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff.

patentCS (COMM) 222/2022 & I.As. 5467-68/2022

Ds Intellectual Properties Pvt. Ltd.vsMr. Faizi Khan

This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark infringement suit filed by Ds Intellectual Properties Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Faizi Khan regarding the use of similar marks, specifically '0'/'ZERO' versus '00', on respective products. The court noted the dispute over consumer confusion and directed the defendant to consider modifying their mark or label design. Crucially, the defendant was ordered to cease manufacturing fresh stock using the disputed marks pending further proceedings.

patentCS(COMM) 467/2022

Appy Pie LlpvsEngineer.Ai India Pvt. Ltd.

In this trademark infringement matter, Appy Pie LLP sought to address the misuse of its 'APPY PIE' brand through the Google Ads Program. The Delhi High Court recognized that since Google LLC was not initially part of the suit, it needed to be formally added to the proceedings. This order allowed for the impleadment of Google as Defendant No. 5, ensuring all relevant parties are involved in addressing the trademark misuse allegations.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call