INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PACKAGING

1
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PACKAGING

• KNOWLEDGENTIA CONSULTANTS

2
(No Transcript)
3
BUSINESS

• Business is spread over various parameters
• (a) Territory for Export
• (b) Demand of Product
• (c) Partners
• (d) Pricing (e) Marketing
• (f) Packaging
• (g) Transportation
• (h) Branding

4
TERRITORY FOR BUSINESS

• Different territories have different technical
  and safety
• standards, physical and climate conditions
  and market
• environments.
• Products heavily dependent on product,
  presentation,
• colors, designs, formulations or names vary
  according to the taste and
• cultural sensitivities in different
  countries.
• Accordingly the territory for business, whether
  domestic or
• international should be decided.

5
DEMAND OF PRODUCT

• New products enters in the market involved with
  new invention, obtain true success and
  immeasurably greater profit. Demands of such
  products win the competitive positions not only
  in domestic market but also in global market.
• Market is serviced by many competitors, there is
  little choice to match the going price, or go
  below it , to win a share of market. Products of
  registered IPR firms gain market access without
  any hurdles.
• Demand of product also depend on the brand of
  product. Customers ability to recognize the
  product and distinguish it from the products of
  competitors is depend on brand image. Greater
  revenue are generated as consumer demand for
  branded products is increased.

6
PARTNERS

• IP rights provide a basis for collaborative
  partnerships, e.g. in research, marketing, open
  innovation, outsourcing.
• The role of IPRs in a business become more
  sophisticated
• as the business evolves. Organization
  across the world who
• hold the IPRs, Licenses attracts the
  partners for more business
• expansion. Partnership with other companies
  in order create
• business network.

7
PRICING

• Product or service pricing, insurance and mode of
  transport need to be factored into price.
• Objectives of setting price
• 1. Are you attempting to penetrate a new market?
• 2. Looking for long term market growth?
• 3. Pursuing an outlet for surplus production
  products?
• 4. Needing to establish credibility in the market
  first.

8
MARKETING

• Marketing should not be confused with
  advertising, sales or promotion. In fact,
  marketing is the strategy that drives all of
  these processes to effectively communicate
  message to the target consumers.
• The four Ps of Marketing commonly referred to
  as
• the marketing, include
• 1. Product- What is product or service and must
  it be
• adapted to the market?
• 2. Price- What pricing strategy will use?
• 3. Promotion- How will make customers aware of
  product or service?
• 4. Place- How and where will deliver distribute
  product or service?

9
PACKAGING

• The purpose of product packaging is not only
  contain, protect and preserve. It can also used
  for promotion, attraction, facilitates purchase
  decision, differentiation.
• Promotion- Packaging also plays an important
  role for portraying information about the
  product. Outside packaging may contain directions
  on how to use the product or make the product.

10

• Attraction- The colors schemes, designs and types
  of product packaging is the most appealing
  attraction to its intended consumers.
• Facilitates Purchase Decision- Packaging also
  contains ingredients and nutritional information
  about the product. This information can help to
  sell the product because it allows potential
  customers to obtain the necessary information
  they need to make a purchase decision.

11

• Differentiation- Packaging also differentiate one
  brand of product from another brand. Because the
  product packaging can contain company names,
  logos, and the color schemes of the company.
• Buyer relates Origin of Product The Customer
  relates the packaging with the quality and can
  easily establish the origin of the product.

12
TRANSPORTATION

• Transportation provides the essential service of
  linking
• a company to its suppliers and customers. By
  moving goods
• from locations where they are sourced to
  locations where
• they are demanded.
• Quality of transportation infrastructure plays
  important role in
• business to manage inventories and transport
  goods more
• cheaply, access a variety of suppliers and
  markets for their
• products.

13
BRANDING/NAME OF THE PRODUCT

• Brand- Brand is a promise that the product will
  perform as per customers expectations.
• It is a name, term, sign, symbol, colour
  combination, trade dress, get up, overall image
  or look or a combination of all there which
  differentiate the goods/services of one seller
  group of sellers from those of competitors.
• Some examples of well known brands are-
  Patanjali, Airtel, Hindustan Unilever limited.

14
WHY DOES THE NAME OF PRODUCT MATTER?

• Identification of source of product
• Assignment of responsibility to product maker
• Risk Reducer
• Search cost reducer
• Symbolic device
• Signal of Quality
• Deters unhealthy competition

15
PARAMETERS

• All these parameters are interlinked to
  protection of brand through Intellectual property
  registrations
• For Example Products having high enforcement
  of IP shall prefer to do business with strong IP
  protection countries
• Demand for Products shall depend upon whether the
  trademark is registered and well known in that
  territory and accordingly the Pricing can be
  negotiated

16
ADVANTAGES

• Partners The expansion and partnering for
  business shall be dependent upon how strong is
  the IP and accordingly Franchisee, License,
  Exclusive Distribution Agreements can be entered
  into amongst businesses.
• Products with IP have an edge over non branded
  products
• Products/Technology which are Patented or
  protected under Design have a higher value than
  those of competitors
• Deters unfair competition
• Thus, Intellectual Property is one of the
  paramount issue while commencing business in
  domestic or international market.

17
WHAT IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT IN A
NAME/MARK?

• Legal protection accorded to a mark/name/logo/bran
  d is termed as TRADEMARK or COPYRIGHT.
• Legal Protection accorded to an Innovative
  technology or design is covered under PATENT or
  DESIGN.

18
WHAT ALL IPR?

• Four Types of Intellectual Property Rights are
  covered under the Umbrella
• TRADEMARKS
• COPYRIGHTS
• PATENTS
• DESIGNS.

19
TRADEMARKS

• Trade Marks are distinctive symbols, signs, logos
  and/or shape that help consumer to distinguish
  between competing goods or services.
• Trade marks registration enables to maximize
  product differentiation, advertising and
  marketing, thus enhancing the product or services
  in international markets and establishing a
  direct link with the foreign consumers.

20

• Trade Marks are part of the branding, advertising
  and market strategies of a business as they
  symbolise the relationship of trust developed
  over a period of time by the manufacturer or
  provider of a product with the users and
  consumers of its products.
• Trade Marks appreciate in value over time. The
  more business reputation grows, the more valuable
  brand will be. Trademarks also provide value
  beyond core business. Trademarks lead the way for
  expansion from one industry to another.

21
COPYRIGHT

• Copyright is the artistic work/logo or
  combination of artistic work with data on
  websites or compilation of data in the form of
  software.
• Legal copyright registration allows control the
  import and export.
• Exporting the products outside the country brings
  company into contact with different legal
  environment, the rules that apply there may
  differ. Therefore it is important to register
  creative work in prospective exporting countries.
  

22
PATENT

• Patent is an exclusive right granted for an
  innovation, which is a product or a process or
  both that provides a new way of doing something,
  or offers a new technical solution to a problem.
• Patents provide licensing opportunities with
  companies inside and sometimes even outside a
  companys field. An active patent portfolio and
  asset base generates revenue from the licensing
  of patents which cover technology or business
  processes.

23
PATENT

• Possessing a patent help a company to grow by
  capitalising on the market potential of its
  inventions. Small companies use patents to
  financial backing.
• Small scale companies that hold patents attract
  overseas investment and develop products for
  exports.

24
DESIGN

• Design is the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of
  an article which must appeal to the eye. The
  design may consist of three-dimensional features,
  such as the shape or surface of an article, or of
  two dimensional features, such as patterns, lines
  or colour.

25
DESIGN

• Design contribute to both innovation and brand
  building.
• Designs helps improve the form of a product, how
  the brand connects emotionally and engages with
  consumer.

26
TRADEMARKS THEIR REGISTRATION IN INDIA

• Laws Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Trade Mark Rules,
  2002
• Benefit Gives the owner an exclusive right to
  use the mark or logo on its products or services.
  
• Mark or Logo may include distinctive symbols,
  signs or tag lines that help consumers to
  distinguish between other goods or services.
• Period 10 years renewal.

27
IMPORTANCE OF TRADEMARK/BRAND PROTECTION

• Promotes fair and efficient Commerce.
• Regulates Competition.
• Protects Exclusivity of Owner
• Promotes product Quality Consistency.
• Prevents Unfair Competition.
• Enhances quality products in market.
• Builds reputation and goodwill of the
  product/brand and the owner company.
• Excludes others from using similar/identical
  trade mark.

28
COPYRIGHT

• Laws Copyright Act, 1957 and Copyright Rules
  2013
• Benefit Gives the creative author/owner an
  exclusive right to use the logo/work
  internationally.
• Work - Artistic, musical, dramatic, literary,
  cinematographic, creative works of the authors,
  software.
• Period Protection period - Life of author 60
  years.
• Berne Convention - India is a signatory so
  copyright
• registration in India gives protection in all
  member countries.
• Enforcement Efficient criminal and civil
  remedies.

29
COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION

• Artistic work/logo of the Brand can be accorded
  protection through Copyright Registration.
• Copyright Registration is legally valid and
  enforceable in all member countries.
• Indian registration gives international
  protection.
• Cost effective and efficacious remedy.
• Registration is within a span of 1 year.

30
PATENT ITS REGISTRATION IN INDIA

• Laws Patents Act, 2002 recently amended in May,
  2016
• Benefit Gives the owner an exclusive right to
  use the technology for manufacture, sale, retail
  or export.
• Patent can be for a Product or Process or Both if
  the innovation meets the following criterias
• (i) Novelty
• (ii) Inventive Step
• (iii) Industrial Application
• Period 20 years.

31
WHY PATENT?

• Patent is an exclusive right granted by the
  Government to an innovator/inventor for its
  technology
• Patent holder can prevent others from
  manufacturing, using or selling the patented
  product or from using the patented process
  without consent of the Patentee.
• Patented technology can be licensed/assigned and
  the Patent holder can receive royalty over its
  assets
• Credibility of Product/technology enhances
  manifold if it is a Granted Patent

32
VRINGO INFRASTRUCTURE INC. AND ANR VS. INDIAMART
INTERMESH LTD. AND OTHERS

• In January 2014, Vringo and Vringo infrastructure
  filed a patent infringement suit in Delhi high
  Court against ZTE, ZTEs Indian subsidiary, and
  Indiamart, a distributor of ZTE products, over
  the alleged infringments of its patent IN200572.
• This is the first among high-priced patent
  infringement law suits filed in India over mobile
  technologies that refers to the allegedly
  infringing components and not entire devices.
  China based ZTE is manufacturer of telecom
  equipment and systems and mobile phones.
• In February 2014, the court granted an ad-interim
  ex-parte injunction restraining ZTE from
  importing, selling, advertising, installing or
  operating devices that comprise the infringing
  components.

33

• On December 7,2015, Vringo entered into a
  confidential settlement and License agreement
  with ZTE, pursuant to which the parties agreed
  top settle all and any pending litigations and
  proceedings between them relating to, inter alia,
  patent infringement and patent invalidity claims.
  
• ZTE agreed to pay Vringo a sum of 21.5 million
  in cash within 15 days following the execution of
  the agreement.

34
Xiaomi Vs Ericsson case in Delhi high court

• In December 2014, Ericsson had filed a suit
  against Xiaomi in India for the alleged
  infringements of the 8 standards essential
  patents.
• The Delhi high court granted an ex-parte
  injunction on the sale manufacture,
  advertisements and import of Xiaomis devices.
• Xiaomi told the court that it had already got a
  license for patents through through Qualcomm,
  which had secured license from Ericsson. Xiaomi
  had paying to Qualcomm for the patents and
  that Qualcomm was paying Ericsson for those.

35

• The Delhi high court allowed Xiaomi to sell
  certain smart phones in India. The court granted
  relief to sell Qualcomm powered handsets and
  restricted to sell smart phones powered by
  Media-Tek chipsets.

36
The Bajaj Auto Vs TVS Motors Patent Case, Madras
High Court

• Only July 7, 2005, Bajaj was granted a patent
  with a priority date of July 6,2002. The
  invention was called Digital Twin Spark
  ignition technology.
• In 2007 Bajaj claims patent infringement against
  TV at Madras High Court.
• Madras HC issued a temporary injunction on
  16th February, 2008 of the manufacturing and sale
  of TVS bikes with alleged infringed twin spark.
• TVS files a section 106 suit before Madras HC,
  claiming that Bajaj is making
• groundless threats of patent infringement
  and that the court should declare that TVS does
  not infringe.

37

• TVS asks for a vacation of said injunction and a
  Division bench of the same High court agrees and
  vacates the injunction.
• Final Judgment by Supreme Court
• (1) Bajaj was given right as it was manufacturing
  the product for more than 5 years. Thus the
  patent was valid.
• (2) TVS has been allowed to sell its bike with
  Twin Sparks Plugs, with a court Receiver being
  appointed to maintain books of profits.

38
DESIGN REGISTRATION

• Laws Designs Act, 2000 and Design Rules
• Benefit Gives the owner an exclusive right with
  respect to the aesthetic appearance of a Product.
  
• Design can be only for the aesthetic look of the
  product. No mechanical or functional feature is
  protected.
• Period 10 years 5 years renew.

39
HOW TO PROTECT BRANDS INTERNATIONALLY?

• Solution The Madrid system for the
  International Registration of Trademarks.
• Benefits
• Bundle of national rights capable of being
  administered centrally.
• One Language/One Fee.
• Cost Effective.
• Simpler Renewable and Registration process.
• Indian Attorney can be one point of contact.

40
INDIA AS THE OFFICE OF ORIGIN

• India has ratified and implemented Madrid
  Protocol recently.
• Criteria
• The applicant should be a national of India, or
• The applicant should be domiciled in India, or
• The applicant should have a real and effective
  business or commercial establishment in India
• Registration of Trademark with Indian Trade Marks
  Registry is necessary.
• Applicant can designate one or more member
  countries for protecting the mark.

41
PATENT PROTECTION ABROAD

• India has been recently designated as a Searching
  Authority by WIPO.
• Criteria
• The applicant should be a national of India, or
• The applicant should have filed the Patent
  application in India first being a home country.
• Indian patent office can be used for filing PCT
  Application
• Patents filed in India can enter into foreign
  countries by either the route of Patent
  Co-operation Treaty or Direct filing in those
  countries

42
ADVANTAGES OF BRANDING THROUGH IP ACROSS BORDERS

• Exclusivity
• IP is Territorial
• IP Laws and Procedures are Different
• Enforcement of IP Border Measures
• Avenues for partnering Licensing, Joint
  Ventures, Exclusive Distributorship Agreements
• IP in brands gives an edge

43
ENFORCEMENT OF IP

• CAUTION NOTICE
• CEASE DESIST NOTICES TO MANUFACTURERS, DEALERS,
  SELLERS, IMPORTERS EXPORTERS
• LITIGATION
• CRIMINAL ACTION
• CUSTOMS ACT NOTIFICATION, 2007

44
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IMPORTED GOODS)
ENFORCEMENT RULES, 2007

• Customs Act has notified specifically crafted IP
  enforcement rules, 2007 to curb infringing goods
  entering into Indian territory
• These rules are Intellectual Property Rights
  (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
• Owner of IP Right Holder Can give notice to
  Commissioner of Customs in the prescribed format
  for reporting that infringing goods are being
  imported in India

45

• Commissioner of Customs after verifying the
  details will prohibit the clearance of those
  goods Deemed to be Prohibited as per Section 11
  or Suspend the clearance
• On taking order of suspension of
  clearance/prohibition the Customs department
  shall send notice to the right holder as well as
  importer to join proceedings within stipulated
  time period, failing which the Customs
  authorities shall take appropriate action for
  release or disposal of goods as required.

46
REAL TIME CASES

• Synopsis
• IPR and brand names go hand in hand.
• Packaging, trade dress is an essential asset and
  its Infringement should be enforced both in
  domestic and international markets.

47
PACKAGING TRADE DRESS GET UP
48
PACKAGING TRADE DRESS GET UP
49
Vicco Laboratories Bombay v. Hindustan Rimmer,
AIR 1979 Delhi 114.

• Plaintiffs innovated and created a unique color
  combination and packaging and were selling their
  goods since 1995
• Defendants commenced their sale in 1997 and
  copies the carton, get up and colour scheme.
• Court upheld to be a case of Passing off and
  Injuncted the Defendants.

50
ELLORA INDUSTRIES V. BANARSI DAS GOELA ORS.,
AIR 1980 Delhi 254

• FACTS
• Plaintiffs were the registered owners of the
  trade mark 'ELORA' in respect of watches,
  time-pieces, clocks and their parts. And have
  been selling clocks with the trade mark 'ELORA'
  since 1955.
• Later in October 1962 they found an advertisement
  issued by the defendants "ELLORA INDUSTRIES" with
  'ELLORA' as the trademark for their time-pieces. 
• SUIT Plaintiffs filed a suit 1964 to restrain
  the defendants from carrying out their business
  under the trademark "Ellora". The allegations
  made by the plaintiffs were as follows
• .

51
JUDGEMENT

• Defendants were restrained from using the
  trademark ELLORA for clocks and wrist watches by
  the Honble High Court.
• Plaintiffs registration of the mark, use and its
  reputation were upheld.

52
N.R. DONGRE AND ORS. VS WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND
ANOTHER, 1996 (2) ARBLR 488 SC

• Trans-border reputation and good will.
• FACTS
• The Indian company filed for the trademark
  Whirlpool which was opposed by the MNC. Whirlpool
  corporation then filed a suit for permanent
  injunction which was allowed and N.R. Dongre was
  restrained.
• The Apex Court while adjudicating the appeal,
  interpreted the concept of trans border
  reputation of a well known trademark.
• The importance of a trademark across borders was
  found to be within ambit of a trademark.
  Whirlpool established its right on basis of being
  well known worldwide.

53
JUDGEMENT

• The court ruled in favour of the corporation and
  held that they were already indulged in selling
  their products to the U.S embassy in India. And
  further that were advertisements in various
  international magazines being circulated in India
  about the products sold by the corporation
  bearing the trademark and name Whirlpool.
• Granted a temporary injunction in favour of the
  corporation stating that there were no reliable
  and conclusive evidence of defendants having
  carried out marketing of their washing machines
  bearing the trademark 'Whirlpool' for any
  considerable time prior to the date of grant of
  injunction.
• An appeal before the high court saw the judgement
  being upheld. Special Leave Petition was filed
  before the Supreme Court, the court finally
  upheld the decision of the Learned Single Judge
  as well as that of the Division Bench and
  reaffirmed the decision granted by the Single
  Judge bench of the Delhi High Court.

54
UNITED DISTILLERS PLC V JAGDISH JOSHI2000 PTC 502

• The plaintiff owner of the renowned mark JOHNNIE
  WALKER for Scotch whisky.
• Defendant was engaged in the manufacturing of
  Johnnie Walker Gutka (chewing tobacco).

55
JUDGEMENT

• The plaintiff sued the defendant for infringement
  of trademark and trade dress.
• The court held that the defendants trade dress
  was similar to that of the plaintiff and had
  infringed the same.

56
DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED V. MANU KOSURI
AND ANOTHER, 2001 (58) DRJ 241

• FACTS
• DRD is the original registered owner of the
  trademark 'DR. REDDY'S' and has been using the
  trademark along with its subsidiary companies for
  an extensively long time.
• However, at the time of filing the suit, the
  application for registration of trademark DR.
  REDDY'S was pending and the company had a
  registered domain name "drreddys.com
• Defendant Mr. Manu Kosuri registered a domain
  name 'drreddyslab.com' for operating business on
  the internet.
• SUIT DRD filed a suit seeking permanent
  injunction restraining defendant from using the
  domain name drreddyslab.com or any other domain
  name which is similar or identical to DRDs
  trademark

57
JUDGEMENT

• DRD is the original registered owner of the
  trademark 'DR. REDDY'S.
• Court restrained the defendant by a permanent
  injunction from registering a domain name or
  operating any business on the internet and
  elsewhere under the domain name 'drreddyslab.com'
  or any other domain name which is identical and
  similar to DRD's trademark 'DR. REDDY'S'.

58
CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED VS. CADILA
PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,(2001) 5 SCC 73

• FACTS
• Cadila Healthcare Limited and Cadila
  Pharmaceuticals Limited were both pharmaceutical
  giants. Both companies got supplemental right to
  use the mark/logo CADILA as part of merger.
• Cadila Healthcares product was Falcigo and
  Cadila Pharmaceutical launched Falcitab.
• SUIT
• So, Cadila Healthcare filed for injunction on the
  ground of similar/identical trademark.

59
JUDGEMENT

• The Honble Apex Court held since the products in
  question were medicinal products there was a
  greater risk of confusion compared to
  non-medicinal products.
• And it could have fatal and disastrous effects on
  the buyers. Thus, Cadila Pharmaceutical was
  restrained from using a similar trademark

60
PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES V. BHARAT MALIK ANOTHER,
2001 PTC (21) 328

• Infringement of foreign trademark
• FACTS
• Playboy Enterprises Incorporation has been the
  publisher of the widely known magazine PLAYBOY
  filed for restraining an Indian publisher Mr.
  Bharat Malick, who launched PLAYWAY.
• Plaintiff contended that the adoption of the word
  'PLAY' by the defendant was ill motivated and
  illegal. And that the word was phonetically
  similar to the mark PLAYBOY. Hence, there was a
  clear case of infringement of the registered
  trademark of the plaintiff with the intention of
  selling the defendants magazine using the
  goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.

61
JUDGEMENT

• Court held that long and continuous user by
  Plaintiff of the mark PLAYBOY has given it a
  global reputation of being well known in that
  content. Thus, use of mark PLAYWAY for similar
  content amounts to infringement and passing off.
• Defendants were restrained from printing and
  publishing the magazine under the name PLAYWAY.

62
HORLICKS LTD. ORS. V. KARTICK SADHUKAN, 2002
(25) PTC 126 Del

• FACTS
• Plaintiff HORLICKS Ltd. is a foreign company
  engaged in manufacturing of wide range of food
  products.
• Defendants Kartick Confectionery started
  manufacturing a similar look-alike product,
  namely, toffees under the trademark HORLIKS
  infringing the trademark rights enjoyed by
  'HORLICKS.
• SUIT HORLICKS filed for a suit seeking to
  permanently restrain KARTICK CONFECTIONERY from
  infringing the trademark HORLICKS and also its
  copyrights which it enjoyed over the product.

63
JUDGEMENT

• The court ruled that use of the label and
  trademark HORLIKS by defendants in respect of
  toffees is very likely to cause confusion among
  the people. It would thereby lead to deception,
  majorly because Kartick confectionary have
  copied the trademark HORLICKS and also its label
  as and how it appears on the products
  manufactured and marketed by them.
• Court restrained defendants from manufacturing
  and selling toffees or reproducing, printing or
  publishing any label or other related goods under
  the trademark/copyright HORLIKS or under any
  other name that is similar in expression to Hs
  trademark HORLICKS.

64
ICC DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL V. ARVEE
ENTERPRISES ANOTHER2003 PTC (26) 228

• FACTS
• ICC Development (International) Ltd. a company
  formed by the members of the International
  Cricket Council to own and control its commercial
  rights which included media, sponsorship and
  other intellectual property rights relating to
  their events.
• Arvee Enterprises was an authorized dealer of
  Philips India Ltd. Launched a Promotional
  campaign with slogan - "Philips Diwali Manao
  World Cup Jao" and "Buy a Philips Audio System
  win a ticket to the World Cup". They even
  inserted a pictorial representation of a ticket
  with an imaginative seat and gate number saying
  "Cricket World Cup 2003.
• SUIT
• ICC approached the Delhi High Court for restrain
  against the Defendant on the averment of ambush
  marketing

65
JUDGEMENT

• But, the same was dismissed by the Honble Delhi
  High Court as neither it was an Unfair trade
  practice nor misuse of brand of World Cup.
• Court upheld that World Cup is a sporting event
  and not a trademark upon which exclusive rights
  would vest with Plaintiffs as claimed.

66
SATYAM INFOWAY LTD. V. SIFYNET SOLUTIONS PVT.
LTD., AIR 2004 SC 3540

• FACTS
• Satyam Infoway had registered several domain
  names pertaining to its business sifynet.com,
  sifymall.com, sifyrealestate.com, in the year
  1999. It averred that the word "Sify" had become
  a distinctive and well known mark.
• Meanwhile, Sifynet Solutions started using the
  word "Siffy" as part of the domain names and
  claims to have registered in the year 2001.
• SUIT
• Trademark protection was extended to Domain Name
  by Apex Court in 2004.

67
JUDGEMENT

• Apex court held that Domain name protection falls
  within the ambit of Trademark.
• Thus, prior user, registration and probability of
  confusion in public were the parameters for
  restraining the defendants from using similar
  domain names.

68
COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO. LTD ANOTHER. VS. MR.
PATEL OTHERS., 2005 PTC (31) 583

• FACTS
• Colgate Palmolive Co. Limited filed a suit
  against Mr. Patel on the ground that they were
  imitating the trade dress/packaging of their
  product. The packaging of their AJANTA toothpaste
  was infringing the trademark and copyright as
  vested in COLGATE.
• JUDGEMENT
• Court held that there is resemblance and
  imitation and infringement by Defendants. If the
  packaging is changed then their would not be any
  cause of confusion amongst public at large.

69
N. RANGA RAO AND SONS VS ANIL GARG AND ORS.2006
(32) PTC 15 Del

• Plaintiff a pioneer in the agarbathi industry
  inter alia introduced the concept of three
  fragrances in one pack with hexagonal and
  rectangular packaging under the brand name DIA.
  
• Defendant contended commenced production and sale
  of same product with similar packaging under the
  name LIA.

70
JUDGEMENT

• Court held that the total get-up and trade dress
  of the plaintiff and the defendants being
  similar, the defendants cannot be permitted to
  manufacture and sell agarbathies / incense sticks
  in the PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE
  PLAINTIFFS PACKAGING.

71
HEINZ ITALIA VS. DABUR INDIA LIMITED2007 (6) SCC
1

• Plaintiff commenced the use of the trademark
  GLUCON-D and artistic work on packaging since
  1994 onwards.
• In July 2002, Defendant M/S. Dabur India
  commenced marketing a similar product under
  similar trade dress and packaging under the name
  Glucose-D.

72
JUDGEMENT

• The Supreme Court observed that the colour scheme
  of packets of Glucose-D and Glucon-D was almost
  identical with happy family superimposed on
  both packaging of Glucose-D and Glucon-D was so
  similar that it could easily deceive a purchaser.
• Thus, Defendants were restrained from using
  similar packaging.

73
CADBURY INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. V NEERAJ FOOD
PRODUCTS142 (2007) DLT 724

• Plaintiff renowned being the innovator and
  exclusive proprietor of the brand GEMS along
  with other trademarks in its arsenal
• Defendant introduced the product JAMES BOND
  chocolates in the similar shape, size, packaging.
• Plaintiff initiated infringement and injunction
  action against the Defendant.

74
JUDGMENT

• HELD The court observed that the packaging of
  the defendants products were so similar to the
  packaging of the plaintiffs products that they
  were likely to deceive unaware purchasers.
• The court took the view that the trademark of
  the defendant was deceptively or confusingly
  similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark.
  The court allowed the application of the
  plaintiff and restrained the defendant from
  using their trademarks or any other trademarks
  that would be deceptively similar to the
  plaintiffs trademark.

75
Wipro Cyprus Private Limited v. Zeetel
Electronics, Madras High Court 2010 (44) PTC 307
(Mad)

• FACTS
• Wipro Cyprus Private Ltd acquired the trademark
  Yardley and all its variants thereupon from
  Lornamaed Group Ltd including its Indian
  registrations.
• Zeetel Electronics attempted to import talcum
  powder and body sprays having the same trademark
  Yardley from Singapore.
• SUIT
• Wipro filed for a suit of permanent injunction
  against Zeetel.

76
JUDGEMENT

• Madras High Court restrained Zeetel from
  importing the goods in India thereby it upheld
  the exclusive right of Wipro on acquisition of
  brands for India.
• Thus, on the basis of registered Trademarks
  competitor was curbed from doing business of
  goods under that trademark.

77
GORBATSCHOW WODKA KG V JOHN DISTILLERIES
LIMITED2011 (47) PTC 100

• Dispute of Shape of Bottle between Plaintiff and
  Defendant
• Plaintiff creator of unique shape and Defendant
  copied the same.

78
JUDGEMENT

• The Bombay High Court restrained the defendant
  from using a bottle shape that was identical or
  deceptively similar to that used by the
  plaintiff. The shape of goods and their packaging
  are capable of trademark registration.
• The defendant had no bona fide explanation for
  the adoption of a strikingly similar bottle. The
  plaintiffs submission that no manufacturer other
  than the defendant, either globally or in India,
  had adopted the bottle shape was not disputed.
• The court held that if the defendant were allowed
  to dilute the distinctiveness of the plaintiffs
  mark, then other infringers would be emboldened
  to infringe upon the plaintiffs rights.

79
H M CASE

• Hennes Mauritz (H M) recently launched its
  stores in India in October, 2015
• Issued Cease Desist notice to Mumbai based
  retailed HM Mega Brands for trademark
  infringement of logo and colour
• No case has been filed so far by the MNC

80
MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT VEGETABLE PVT. LTD. V. SRI
VINAYAKA MILK PRODUCTS2015 Indlaw DEL 3680

• Plaintiffs adopted the trademark 'MOTHER DAIRY'
  in the year 1974 and has been used widely and
  extensively since then.
• Defendant Sri Vinayaka Milk Products, was
  manufacturing and selling identical products as
  that of the plaintiff i.e. Milk, under an
  identical trademark/label/logo as that of the
  plaintiff apart from using a packaging/trade
  dress similar to plaintiffs packaging/trade
  dress for its packaged milk. 

81
JUDGEMENT

• Held Court held that, the plaintiff is entitled
  for decree for permanent injunction restraining
  the defendants from dealing in Milk products or
  goods, of any description bearing the Mother
  Diary trademark/copyright/label or any mark/label
  that is identical or deceptively similar to the
  plaintiffs artistic packaging/trade
  dress/trademark.

82
BURGER KING

• Launching its operations in India, almost a year
  ago Burger King is entangled in a few trademark
  litigations. Whilst some companies have
  acknowledged its well known trademark and changed
  their names, the others are fighting against the
  MNC and keeping their stance strong.
• Burger King Corporation is rampantly enforcing
  its trademarks in India along with expanding its
  outlets and reaching to the public at large.

83
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Mr J.D. Joshi
(Delhi)2015(64) PTC 135

• Bristol is the exclusive owner of Patent for
  DASATINIB and its pharmaceutically acceptable
  salts, solvates, isomers covered by the claims of
  IN 203937 in India.
• Its a valid and subsisting and has a term of 20
  years from 12th April, 2000 in India.
• Defendant commenced the manufacture of the
  similar product.
• Restrained by Delhi High Court as the same
  amounts to blatant infringement by the Defendant.
  

84
DEERE PRODUCTS 2015(63) PTC 433

• Farm Equipment being manufactured by Defendants
  which was similar to John Deere Products
• John Deere registered mark well known in the
  field of agricultural equipment's.
• Delhi High Court restrained them and Suit was
  decreed on defendants undertaking to cease use
  of the infringing trade dress for its equipment's.

85
ITC V/S BRITANNIA ZERO DIGESTIVE

• Ref The Times of India, Wednesday 07.09.2016
• ITC, the exclusive proprietor of the copyright in
  the distinctive packaging of its biscuits filed
  Infringement action in Delhi High Court against
  its competitor Britannia.

86
JUDGEMENT

• The Honble Court restrained Britannia from
  selling the Nutri Choice Digestive Zero biscuits
  being an infringement of the copyright of ITC in
  its Sun Feast Farmlite Digestive biscuits.
• The Court has reasserted the importance of
  copyright in the creativity of the proprietor and
  averred that the packaging of Britannia is
  deceptive.
• Thus, they have been refrained from selling the
  biscuits in the infringing packaging by the Court.

87
WHY IPR IS IMPORTANT FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP
BUSINESS BRANDING
88

• Thus, in the current dynamic situation it is
  imperative that the products are packaged
  innovatively so as to target the customer base
• Combining the opportunities with knowledge of
  Intellectual property rights along with the other
  parameters shall give an edge to entrepreneurs in
  this trade
• Also, the Government is making a lot of
  endeavours to encourage start ups to innovate and
  protect their creativity and ideas through IPR at
  nominal rates and also offering tax rebates to
  the Start Ups.
• Make in India and Start Up India

89
CONCLUSION
90

• THANK YOU
• All Rights Reserved. Knowledgentia Consultants