Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

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

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)

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

Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary , a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University) . If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . 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. Fac
Read more