Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del) (DB)

By

Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del) (DB)|Case Study/Summary/Brief


Facts

An action for infringement raised by the plaintiff/appellants (Pepsi Co. Inc.) against the defendants/respondents (Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd.) on the grounds that -
  1. The commercials/advertisements launched on television by the respondents to promote their products are disparaging the products of the appellants thereby infringing the trademark and copyright of the appellants in relation to its registered trademark "PEPSI", "GLOBE DEVICE" and the phrase "Yeh Dil Maange More".
  2. The roller coaster commercial has been copied by the respondents, thereby infringing the copyright of the appellant.
The Single Judge Bench of this Court dismissed the application for interim injunction and held that the disputed commercial of the respondents is a healthy competition and a mere poking the product of the appellant which is permissible, therefore the appellant's trademark was not infringed by disparaging. Hence this appeal raised here.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents have disparaged the products of the appellants.
  2. Whether the globe devise and the phrase "Yeh Dil Maange More" is copyrightable and if so whether this copyright has been infringed u/s 29(1) of the Act of 1958 by the respondent by using the colour scheme of "GLOBE DEVISE" and by saying "Yeh Dil Maange No More".
  3. Whether the essence of rollercoaster has been copied by the respondents.

Decisions

  1. The respondents have disparaged the products of the appellants.
  2. The globe devise and the phrase "Yeh Dil Maange More" is copyrightable but it has not been infringed u/s 29(1) of the Act of 1958.

Reasoning

Issue 1

  1. To decide the question of disparagement the following factors shall be considered:-
    1. Intent of commercial
    2. Manner of commercial
    3. Storyline of the commercial and 
    4. The message sought to be conveyed by the commercial
  2. The manner in which the respondents compared it's product "THUMS UP" with "PAPPI" i.e. PEPSI by embarassing the boy who preferred for "PAPPI or PEPSI" and also by calling it " Yeh Bachhon Wali Hai. Bachhon ko Yeh Pasand Aayegi", "Wrong Choice Baby" clearly depicts the product of the appellant as derogatory and in low estimation and of low worth.
  3. The respondents in the garb of puffing up its product prima facie tried to depict the product of the appellant as inferior.

Issue 2

  1. Yes, the globe devise and the phrase "Yeh Dil Maange More" is copyrightable because:-
    1. "Yeh Dil Maange More" is the original work of the appellant created from two different languages.
    2. It has acquired distinctiveness and association with the product of the appellant.
    3. The appellant has spent enormous amount to popularise it.
    4. The advertising catch phrases are entitled to copyright protection.
  2. The respondent by using the colour scheme of "GLOBE DEVISE" and by saying "Yeh Dil Maange No More" did not infringed in terms of S.29(1) because:-
    1. The respondents didn't used it for their own product nor passed on their product.
    2. These marks were not used in the course of trade.
    3. Also the use didn't associate the respondents' product with appellant's mark.
  3. Comparative advertisement is permissible in India.
  4. The use of the phrase was mere a parody.

Issue 3

  1. The roller coaster commercial of the appellant is an original work, hence covered under S.14 of the Copyright Act.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more