Fashion law

Copy Right
Copyright is a type of intellectual property
that gives its owner the exclusive right to
make copies of a creative work, usually for
a limited time.The creative work may be in
a literary, artistic, educational, or musical
form. Copyright is intended to protect the
original expression of an idea in the form of
a creative work, but not the idea itself.
Oracle America, Inc., owns a copyright in Java SE, a computer platform
that uses the popular Java computer programming language. In 2005,
Google acquired Android and sought to build a new software platform
for mobile devices. To allow the millions of programmers familiar with
the Java programming language to work with its new Android plat-
form, Google copied roughly 11,500 lines of code from the Java SE
pro- gram. The copied lines are part of a tool called an Application Pro-
gramming Interface (API). An API allows programmers to call upon
prewritten computing tasks for use in their own programs. Over the
course of protracted litigation, the lower courts have considered (1)
whether Java SE’s owner could copyright the copied lines from the API,
and (2) if so, whether Google’s copying constituted a permissible “fair
use” of that material freeing Google from copyright liability
ROGERS V. KOONS

Rogers is a professional photographer whose “Puppies” photo had

been reproduced as a note card. Koons is an artist and sculptor who
often uses images from mass culture to comment upon society.
Koons modeled a three-dimensional sculpture entitled “String of
Puppies” after Rogers’ image. He gave his artisans Roger’s note card
and directed them to create a reproduction “just like the photo.”
Rogers sued Koons for copyright infringement.
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp
The plaintiff, Leslie Kelly, is a professional photographer who has
copyrighted many of his images of the American West. Some of
these images are located on Kelly's web site or other web sites
with which Kelly has a license agreement. The defendant, Arriba
Soft Corp., operates an internet search engine that displays its
results in the form of small pictures rather than the more usual
form of text. Arriba obtained its database of pictures by copying
images from other web sites. By clicking on one of these small
pictures, called "thumbnails," the user can then view a large
version of that same picture within the context of the Arriba web
page.

When Kelly discovered that his photographs were part of Arriba's

search engine database, he brought a claim against Arriba for
copyright infringement
Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co

Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. (Plaintiff) provides telephone

service to several communities. Due to a state regulation, it must issue an
annual telephone directory, so it published a directory consisting of white
and yellow pages. The yellow pages have advertisements that generate
revenue. Feist Publications, Inc. (Defendant) is a publishing company
whose directory covers a larger range than a typical directory. Defendant
distributes their telephone books free of charge, and they also generate
revenue through the advertising in the yellow pages. Plaintiff refused to
give a license to Defendant for the phone numbers in the area, so
Defendant used them without Plaintiff’s consent. Rural sued for copyright
infringement.
Fisher v. Dees

In 1984, Rick Dees, a disc jockey, sought and was refused permission to
use Marvin Fisher's song "When Sunny Gets Blue", with the intention of
creating a "comedic and inoffensive" version. Although the request was
rejected, Dees released an album, Put It Where the Moon Don't Shine,
with a song entitled "When Sonny Sniffs Glue". It sampled from the very
recognizable main theme, along with recognizably altered song lyrics:
Folsom v. Marsh

The Reverend Charles Wentworth Upham, a writer and anthologist, had

copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George
Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his
own.[2] The work was published by Bela Marsh, of Marsh, Capen, and
Lyon.

The publisher Charles Folsom, of Folsom, Wells and Thurston, who had
published the first set of letters (a twelve-volume edition edited by
Jared Sparks), sued for "piracy of the copyright". The defendant argued
that the papers were not copyrightable because, as the letters of a
deceased author, they were not private property and not "proper
subjects of copyright"; that even if copyrightable, as works of the
President they belonged to the United States; and lastly, that their use
was fair, because it was the creation of an essentially new work.
CARIOU V. PRINCE

Photographer Patrick Cariou published in 2000 Yes, Rasta a book of

photographs of the Rastafarian community in Jamaica.[3] Richard Prince in
2008 created Canal Zone, a series of art works incorporating Cariou's
photographs.[3] Prince's works involved copying the original photographs
and engaging in a variety of transformations. These included printing them,
increasing them in size, blurring or sharpening, adding content (sometimes
in color), and sometimes compositing multiple photographs together or
with other works.[3] Prince exhibited his collection at Gagosian Gallery in
New York as appropriation art.
COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE v. REID

The Community for Creative Non-Violence, a homeless charity,

paid a sculptor called James Earl Reid for a statue that depicted
the plight of homeless people for a Christmas pageant in
Washington DC, called "Third World America".[2] CCNV
members visited Reid's Baltimore studio as he made the statue,
gave suggestions and directions about its appearance. CCNV paid
Reid the final installment on delivery. They had not discussed
copyright in the sculpture. They both filed competing certificates.
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises,

Former President Gerald Ford had written a memoir, A Time to Heal,

including an account of his decision to pardon Richard Nixon. Ford had
licensed his publication rights to Harper & Row, which had contracted for
excerpts of the memoir to be printed in Time magazine. Instead, The
Nation magazine published 300 to 400 words of verbatim quotes from the
500-page book without the permission of Ford, Harper & Row, or Time.
MGM Studios v. Grokster

Grokster and other companies distributed free software that allowed computer user
to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks. In such networks, users can
share digital files directly between their computers, without the use of a central
server. Users employed the software primarily to download copyrighted files, file-
sharing which the software companies knew about and encouraged. The companies
profited from advertising revenue, since they streamed ads to the software users. A
group of movie studios and other copyright holders sued and alleged that Grokster
and the other companies violated the Copyright Act by intentionally distributing
software to enable users to infringe copyrighted works.
Patent
Patent infringement is the violation of the exclusive rights of the
patent holder. The Indian Patents Act 1970, (“Patents Act”) does
not specifically define activities or situations that constitute patent
infringement. Section 48 of the Patents Act gives the patent holder/
patentee an ‘exclusive right’ to exclude any third- party from
making, using, offering, selling, manufacturing etc. the patented
invention/ product/ process, during the valid term of the patent. This
essentially creates monopolistic rights over the patented invention/
product/ process. Thus, any activity which violates such a monopoly
can be considered a patent infringement.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty

Mohan Chakrabarty was a Genetic engineer who was working for General Electric. He had created a
bacterium that was derived from the Pseudomonas genus – presently known as Pseudomonas putida.
This bacterium was competent of breaking down crude oil, which he offered to use in the treatment of
oil spills. General Electric later filed a patent application for the bacterium with the USPTO – with
Chakrabarty being stated as the inventor – but the application was denied by a patent examiner. The
reason behind being that under the patent law at that time, living things were generally not considered
as a patentable subject matter under Section 101
BAJAJ Auto Limited Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited

The case involved the unauthorized application and use of the patented
Digital Twin Spark Ignition (DTSi) technology by TVS Motor
Company (Defendant). The DTSi was the intellectual property of
BAJAJ auto limited (Plaintiff). Plaintiff had applied for a patent
application for the technology in the year 2002 and was granted a
patent in 2005.
Novartis vs. Cipla,

Novartis (Plaintiff) sued Cipla (Defendabt) for infringing patents covering

Onbrez (Indacaterol-drug used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
and sought damages.
014, the Defendant launched a generic version of Onbrez and in the process
petitioned to have the Plaintiff’s patents revoked.
Ericsson v Xiaomi,

Ericsson (Plaintiff) had filed a suit against Xiaomi (Defendant) in India for the
alleged infringement of the 8 standard-essential patents (SEPs). A patent that
protects technology essential to a standard is called SEP.
The Plaintiff contended that the licenses on the SEPs were offered to be granted
some companies on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms,
however, these companies had refused to undertake such licenses and were using
these patents without license and accordingly were infringing Plaintiff’s SEPs.
Merck Sharpe and Dohme Corporation v. Glenmark

Merck Sharpe and Dohme Corporation (Plaintiff) obtained a patent for antidiabetic drugs
and called them “Januvia” (sitagliptin) and “Janumet” (combination of sitagliptin and
metformin) in 2007. The Plaintiff launched “Januvia” in India only for Rs. 43 (1/5th of its
price in the USA) in public interest. In addition to that they also launched a patient access
program for the same.
Glenmark (Defendant), started making and marketing generic versions of these two drugs
under the brand “ZITA” and “ZITA –MET”, respectively, leading the Plaintiff to file an
infringement suit against the Defendant.
Ravi Kamal Bali v. Kala Tech. and Ors

Ravi Kamal Bali (Plaintiff) had been granted a patent in lieu of ‘tamper locks/ seals’ in
1994. He had also secured an additional patent for an improvement on the tamper
lock, called ‘TechLock’.
Plaintiff found that the Defendants (three defendants) were using and selling similar
products and filed a patent infringement suit before Bombay HC.
The Plaintiff came across a similar product bearing the name “SEAL TECH” which
had constructional and functional features similar to that of the Plaintiff’s TechLock.
Shogun Organics Ltd v. Gaur Hari Guchhait

Shogun Organics Ltd. (Plaintiff) is a company engaged in the research, manufacture, and sale of
mosquito repellents and Manaksia Ltd.
(Defendant) is a competitor of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was granted a patent in 2009. The Defendant filed a post-grant opposition in 2013
which was considered by the IPAB, which reinstated the Plaintiffs patent.
The Plaintiff soon became aware that the Defendant had been using this patent technology and
brought an infringement suit against the Defendant. The Plaintiff prayed the court to grant a
permanent injunction and to restrain the Defendant from using the patented technology.
Indoco Remedies Ltd v. Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings

Bristol Myers Squibb (Bristol) was the patent holder and producer of a
drug called “Apixaban”. Bristol approached Delhi HC in 2019 seeking
an ad-interim injunction against Indoco Remedies (Indoco) for
infringing their patent and producing a generic form of the drug called
“APIXABID”.
Bayer Corporation v. Union of India, 162

In 2008, Bayer Corporation (Plaintiff), was granted a patent by the Indian Patent
Office for its drug ‘Sorafenib Tosylate’ which is used to treat liver and kidney cancer.
in 2012, Natco Pharma was granted the first ever Compulsory License by the
Drug Controller of India (Defendants) to produce a generic version of this drug.
Plaintiff was selling the drug at Rs. 2,80,000 per month for a course and
Defendant promised to make this drug available for Rs. 8,800 only.
Aloys Wobben vs Enercon

Dr. Aloys Wobben (Plaintiff) held several Indian Patents in this field.
In 1994, Enercon India (Defendant) was carrying out manufacturing
operations as agreed in a joint venture agreement. However, the
agreement was eventually terminated and the Defendant filed 19
revocation applications before the IPAB, seeking revocation of Plaintiffs
Indian Patents.
Trade Mark
Trademark infringement has recently become the crime similar
to pocket picking as small business owners are over desirous to
achieve fame and money in no time and thus some of them
choose to ride upon the already established goodwill of market
players rather than building their own. In the quest of earning
more without efforts such owners adopt the existing trademarks
either exactly or modifying it in a way that is difficult to be
differentiable.
Academy Awards v. GoDaddy

Academy Awards was headed up against the domain retailer GoDaddy. It was a
battle that lasted for five years. Initially, in 2010, it was filed by Academy alleging
GoDaddy’s decision to let customers buy “confusingly” similar domain names like
2011Oscars.com, etc. It claimed on allowing individuals to pass on the profits who
wanted to “park” on these domains and claimed a part of revenue.
Yahoo! Inc v yahoo india

It was for the first time that the Delhi High Court held a registered domain
name equivalent to the trademark giving it the entitled, equal protection. The
defendant, in this case, was ‘Yahoo India!’ for protecting their domain name.
Now, this was identical and even phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s trademark
‘Yahoo!’ 
The court believed that people will be deceived into thinking that both the domain will
carry the same source. Here, the defendant was of an argument that it has put a notice,
stating the same, on the website.
The Coca Cola Company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.

Bisleri was the defendant by a master agreement having transfer and assign the trademark
rights for MAAZA. It also gave away the formulation rights, IPR, and know-how along with the
goodwill for India for bottling and selling a mango fruit drink – MAAZA to Coca Cola. 
the defendant company applied for trademark registration for the word MAAZA in Turkey and
begin exporting the same fruit drink under the given name. The plaintiff, Coca Cola claimed a
permanent injunction and infringement damages for passing off and trademark since it was given
to them by a defender, Bisleri.
Louis Vuitton v. Louis Vuiton Dak

Trademark cases are not only fought for the same business domain. This case of Louis Vuitton v
Louis Vuiton Dak is an example of one such infringement case. The Louis Vuiton Dak is a South
Korean fried chicken restaurant that lost the battle against the clothing designer Louis Vuitton.
The court ruled the case in designer’s favor, concluding that a restaurant’s name – Louis Vuiton
Dak is too similar to the brand name Louis Vuitton. Also, the logo and packaging of the
restaurant were resembling very much to the designer’s iconic imagery.
Zara Food vs Zara Fashion

Another case of food industry vs fashion for the brand name – Zara.
It is a renowned fashion brand having major operations across the
world found a restaurant operating in Delhi under the same name. It
is highly possible that any consumer would confuse one for the other
and take into consideration that the restaurant was started by the
fashion brand.
DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House and Ors.

Daler Mehendi, the famous pop star from Punjab has a large fan base and is extremely popular
amongst Punjabi pop music lovers. DM Entertainment was incorporated in 1996 to manage the
artist’s escalating career. The defendant company was making a large business by selling miniature
dolls of the artist and cashing on his popularity. The plaintiff company was extremely aggrieved
and filed for permanent injunction from infringing the artist’s right of publicity and false
endorsement leading to passing off.
Milmet Oftho Industries & Ors. V. Allergan Inc.

The Supreme Court granted trademark protection

to a well-known foreign brand. The court
restrained an Indian company from using the mark
OCUFLOX. The judgment was given irrespective of
the fact that the mark was neither used nor
registered in India. The court held that the
respondent was the first to enter the market and
adopt the mark. It does not matter that the
respondent has not used the mark in India if they
are the first to enter the world market.
The Ritz Hotel Limited v. Canada Fly Consultancy & Ors. [TM No. 116/18]

The Hotel Ritz Paris, one of the most popular Parisian hotels, filed for
a permanent injunction to restrain Canada Fly Consultancy from
infringing its registered trademark RITZ. Canada Fly Consultancy
based out of Mumbai was claiming to be a government registered
firm and providing employment consultancy and placement services in
the hotel industry overseas by using the domain name
STARBUCKS COFFEE V SARDARBUKSH COFFEE

The famous Starbucks became the victim of smart minds of Indian

Infringers where the man used Sardar instead of Star yet in such a
deceptive way and on such a large scale that people were made to
believe they belong to the same owner. However the Court allowed the
Defendant the right to use the modified version of the Trademark Sardar
Baksh to Sardarji Baksh and also gave Defendant the chance to
Defendant to sue the person who uses Baksh in future.
Whatman International Limited v. P Mehta & Ors.

The Delhi High Court has awarded damages of 3.85 Crores to WHATMAN International
Limited, a UK based company, in a suit for trademark infringement. WHATMAN is a
well-known GE Healthcare Life Sciences brand specializing in laboratory filtration
products. WHATMAN had claimed in the suit that P. Mehta and others belonging to the
same family, are selling filter paper of an identical colour combination to theirs, under
various brands and thus harming their reputation. The Court in its judgment said that
the infringing parties were not only selling lookalike filter paper but were also selling
counterfeit WHATMAN filter papers, making customers believe that the filter papers
were genuine WHATMAN products.
Industrial design

Industrial Design Registration protect novel non-functional features of

shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation or composition of lines or
colors, applied to any article either in two or three dimensional or in both
forms by any industrial process or means whether manual, mechanical or
chemical, separate or combined which in the finished article appeal to and
are judged solely by the eye but does not include any mode or principle of
construction or anything which in substance a mere mechanical device, and
does not include any trademark. .
 Crocs v Bata

Crocs filed a suit against Bata for infringement of its registered sandal designs and passing off its trademarks in
the shape and configuration of its footwear. As the design registration was a prima facie liability to be canceled
based on prior publication and new, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court did not interfere with the
single judge’s order denying the interim injunction to Crocs. Before filing the date of the design application, the
designs were issued on the Crocs website.
Ritika pvt ltd vs Biba

Ritika pvt ltd has filed the suit for seeking an injunction against the
defendant from reproducing, printing, publishing, selling or offering,
etc. of prints or garments which are a duplication of the Plaintiff’s
work.
Good Earth vs. India Circus.

The company Good Earth sued India Circus for Passing Off of some of the
Designs of the company Good Earth. The company India Circus took a defense
that the designs used are not new or novel. The court decided in the case that
even the Designs that are old and are applied to a new article should be
protected. The court interpreted the term “original,” which includes Designs that
are old but are unique in its applications.
BLACKBERRY V. TYPO

BlackBerry Ltd. on 3rd January, 2014, filed a case against Typo

Products LLC, in the California Northern District Court, for design
infringement of their famous QWERTY keyboard.
BlackBerry’s registered design over the keyboard. The defendant Typo
Products LLC was a company that had been selling a fitted keyboard for
the iPhone, which was accused of infringing the keyboard design of
BlackBerry’s phones.
Apple Vs Samsung

The Apple Vs Samsung had a recent development where the USPTO held that an iPhone design
patent was invalid which will cause a drastic change in the damages awarded in the first court
decision. The particular U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677 was found to be invalid by the USPTO’s
Central Reexamination Division on 5th August, 2015.
The USPTO has also not allowed Apple to claim prior filing dates of two patents relating to the
same design and is therefore considered as prior art, which does not meet the requirements of
patentability. This change in the validity of the design patent has helped to reduce the damages
awarded in the initial district court decision.
Crocs Inc USA v Liberty ShoesLimited

Crocs filed several suits for infringement of its registered

designs, seeking a permanent injunction against the Liberty ,
restraining them from infringing the design of Crocs
footwear.
Crocs contended that imitation of its designs by the defendants
amounted to piracy and/or infringement of its registered designs
Carlsberg Breweries V Som Distilleries And Breweries Ltd

The suit in question was filed, complaining of infringement of a

registered design as well as passing off (of the plaintiff's trade dress)
in respect of the bottle and overall get up of the "Carlsberg" mark.
The defendant objected to the frame of the suit, pointing out that per
Mohan Lal,the two claims (for passing off and reliefs regarding
design infringement) could not be combined in one suit. The question
was sent to Delhi High Court for reference which constituted a
special bench to decide the issue.
Micolube India Ltd. v. Rakesh Kumar

In the first case(Micolube), Plaintiff was in the business if

manufacturing and marketing petroleum products and other allied
and cognate goods. It claimed to have created two novel designs in
containers used for selling the said products and obtaining
registration for the same. When the Plaintiff found out that the
Defendants were selling their goods in identical containers and are
thus committing piracy of registered design of the Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff instituted an action for permanent injunction against the
Defendants.
Videocon Industries Ltd. vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd

The Designs Act 2000 defines the design of the article by an

industrial process that appeals to and is judged solely by the eye
in the final article as characteristics of the form, layout,
ornament, or composition of lines or colours. This means that
the "trial solely by the eye" test becomes crucial in situations in
which a design breach is supposed to occur. In the case before
us, the judgment of the judge in favor of Whirlpool India Ltd
who ordered Videocon to not infringe or move the design of the
washing machine was challenged by Videocon Industries Ltd.
The judgment of the court judge, which made a decision against
Videocon.
Dart Industries Inc. & Ors. v Techno Plast

The first plaintiff, Dart, a US based company and the second plaintiff, Tupperware Indian
Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL) filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Delhi High Court against
Techno Plast, the proprietor of the mark “Signoware”. The plaintiffs claimed that
ownership to the know-how, intellectual property rights and trade secrets in its designs
used for the manufacture of Tupperware products. The plaintiffs alleged that they were a
world famous company with immense goodwill and reputation and the defendant
company copied their product designs which amount to design infringement, copyright
infringement, passing off, copying designs by reverse engineering, unfair competition and
unfair trade practices. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that the products were
distinct in terms of trade name, appearance, colour scheme and a product of their own
skill and knowledge and also that the designs wer
TRADE SECRET

A trade secret is any practice or process of a company

that is generally not known outside of the company.
Information considered a trade secret gives the
company a competitive advantage over its competitors
and is often a product of internal research and
development.
Contour Design, Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Co.

Contour Design showed that trade secret protection may attach to

information before it has yielded any income. Trade secrets are usually
information used in making or selling: manufacturing processes, customer
lists, chip designs, software, etc. The value is shown by an existing market
for the goods or services. Contour Design shows that protection may attach,
however, early in the product cycle. A concept not yet made into a product
(an ergonomic roller as alternative to computer mouse) had sufficient
commercial value to be a trade secret. Contour Design gives some
protection to start-ups and other entrepreneurial thinkers, providing legal
protection for valuable ideas.
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella,
Bimbo Bakeries represents an important expansion in the scope of trade secret protection. In
recent years, some courts had adopted the doctrine of “inevitable disclosure,” enjoining a
competitor from hiring a key employee where trade secrets would inevitably be used in the new
position. Bimbo Bakeries lowered the bar, holding an injunction appropriate where there is
“sufficient likelihood, or substantial threat” that trade secrets will be disclosed or used. The rule
requires no showing of misappropriation or intent to use trade secrets. In Bimbo Bakeries, the
employee had repeatedly accessed confidential information shortly before leaving to join the
competitor, showing his intent to use the information in his new position. His new position was
substantially similar to his old one, meaning that the information (such as market information)
would be valuable in that position. There was no showing that he had actually used the
information for the competitor—and in fact at that time signed a statement that the competitor
did not intend him to use any confidential information from his former employer. But given his
recent efforts to access the information and likelihood he would use it in his new position, the
court held a temporary injunction appropriate. Bimbo Bakeries shows that employees remain the
most important data storage devices.
United States v. Aleynikov,

Aleynikov held that a bank’s high-frequency trading

software qualified as a trade secret, meaning that taking the
software to a new employer violated the Economic
Espionage Act. It was not necessary that the bank be
marketing the software to others for it to be protected.
Aleynikov provides a reminder that intellectual property may
also have strong protection under criminal laws.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mortensen

Nationwide Mutual reflects the many ways in which intellectual property law adapts to new
technologies—often by not extending protection. A trade secret must be information not
readily available to others. Compiling a valuable database does not a trade secret make,
where the same information is publicly available, albeit on paper. The

database in Nationwide Mutual Insurance was valuable to the business, especially because it
was in electronic form. An electronic base is quicker to search, easier to organize, and can
serve the business in many ways. The value to the business did not derive from the customer
information being secret. To the contrary, the same information was available from public
sources. Simply adapting old methods to new technologies does not vest them with legal
protection.39
JustMed, Inc. v. Byce,

JustMed provided several examples of behavior concerning a trade secret that the court deemed
inappropriate, but not misappropriation. A disgruntled employee deleted copies of the source
code of the company’s crown jewel software. Then, he deposited portions of the software as part
of an attempt to register the software’s copyright and threatened to withhold the software from
the company. Misappropriation, however, requires wrongful acquisition, use, or disclosure of the
trade secret. Deleting it, withholding it, and submitting partial copies in confidence to the
Copyright Office fall outside those categories.
United states of america vs unite micro electronic

A China-backed Taiwanese company is in the United States government’s

crosshairs as an increase in espionage has begun to mount. This spawned
from the most recent indictment naming the company United
Microelectronic Corporation (UMC), Fuijan Jinhua Integrated Circuit and
three individuals named Stephen Chen, JT ho, and Kenny Wang in a scheme
to steal trade secrets valued at up to $8.75 billion. Attorney General Jeff
Sessions has reached a boiling point with Chinese espionage stating, “[w]e
are here to say enough is enough”.
Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp.

Intel was not liable for trade secret misappropriation for using code that was created using
trade secrets, where code supplied to Intel did not contain the trade secret information. This
case emphasizes the limited nature of trade secret protection. A party that misappropriates
information may be liable, but subsequent good faith parties that use the information are
not. If a trade secret is wrongfully published, for example, it nevertheless becomes
information free for anyone to use.
Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp.

Faiveley is a 2009 case, with a lesson worth stretching the calendar a little. If an inventor has a patent on
brakes for subway trains, no one can make or use such brakes without a license. But if the inventor has
no patent and relies on trade secret protection, someone else may use reverse engineering. The
competitor may not get the information by bribing employees or other industrial espionage, but may
examine the product and figure out how it was made. That is what the competitor attempted in
Faiveley. But attempts to reverse engineer the brake design were unsuccessful. The competitor then
enlisted help from an employee of the brake-maker, one who had frequent access to drawings of the
brakes. Not surprisingly, the competitor managed to copy the brakes. Faiveley held that this was not
permitted reverse engineering, this was prohibited misappropriation of a trade secret.
 Waymo LLC V Uber

Waymo LLC, a self-driving car startup under Alphabet (originally known as Google’s Self-
Driving Car Project), filed a complaint in California’s Northern District accusing Uber of
violating the Defense of Trade Secrets Act and the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, as well
as patent infringement. Waymo alleges that a former Google employee, Anthony Levandowski,
secretly downloaded 14,000 files of “highly confidential data” from Google’s hardware systems
before resigning a month later and launching a self-driving truck startup called Otto. Uber
acquired Otto in August 2016 and put Levandowski in charge of its self-driving efforts.
Waymost alleges that Levandowski used the information from Google’s system to launch Otto.
 GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS

A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and
possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin. In order to function as a GI, a sign must
identify a product as originating in a given place.
 Tirupati Laddu

TTD claimed that the Laddus (Prasadam), was unique in terms of quality, reputation, and sanctity. Its reputation is not
just from its taste, but from its sanctity as well. As it appears, the move for a GI tag was a result of legally combating th
activities of local vendors selling identically similar ‘Laddus’ by themselves. It is important to note that, on an annual
count the revenue from the same is seemingly large, which is said to be an approximate Rs. 2 crores or so. However, M
Praveen Raj opposed in principal and noted as follows: “The GI Act is meant to benefit collective groups or societies. It
isn’t meant to create a new monopoly”. He also noted that a dangerous trend shall see the reckoning if the GI status is
allotted where Intellectual Property and Religion stands at a point of dispute. The fact that the Laddus was prepared by
labourers who were hired, no way this community being benefited from the issue was held up as a major contention to
the issue.TTD claimed that the Laddus (Prasadam), was unique in terms of quality, reputation, and sanctity. Its
reputation is not just from its taste, but from its sanctity as well. As it appears, the move for a GI tag was a result of
legally combating the activities of local vendors selling identically similar ‘Laddus’ by themselves. It is important to note
that, on an annual count the revenue from the same is seemingly large, which is said to be an approximate Rs. 2 crores
or so. However, Mr. Praveen Raj opposed in principal and noted as follows: “The GI Act is meant to benefit collective
groups or societies. It isn’t meant to create a new monopoly”. He also noted that a dangerous trend shall see the
reckoning if the GI status is allotted where Intellectual Property and Religion stands at a point of dispute. The fact that
the Laddus was prepared by labourers who were hired, no way this community being benefited from the issue was held
up as a major contention to the issue.
Tea Board, India v ITC

Tea Board, India v ITC Limited may be the first case on infringement of
a registered geographical indication (GI) to be decided by an Indian
Court. The Calcutta High Court denied an interim injunction to the Tea
Board of India, the registered proprietor of the GI, Darjeeling. The Tea
Board sued ITC, inter alia, under the Geographical Indication of Goods
(Registration & Protection) Act 1999, for infringement of its registered
GI against the use of the name "Darjeeling Lounge, alleging such use
amounted to an act of unfair competition including passing off.
The Scotch Whisky Association vs Golden Bottling Limited

The Plaintiffs have filed this suit for a permanent injunction restraining the
Defendant and those acting under the Defendant from dealing, in any manner, with
whisky under the name 'Red Scot' or any other name containing the word 'Scot' or
any word similar thereto so that the Defendant cannot pass off its whisky as Scotch
whisky.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericcson vs Union Of India & Ors

The Custom Authorities to suspend the clearance of those imported goods which infringe Intellectual
Property Rights namely in breach of the intellectual rights in India and outside India and which are
sought to be imported without the consent of the right holder or a person duly authorized to do so by
the right holder. After the suspension, the Custom Authorities allow a right holder and the importer or
their duly authorized representative to examine the goods, supply the information to the right holder as
well as the importer and determine as to whether the goods are infringing the Intellectual Property
Rights of the right holder.
Unknown vs Itc Limited

A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, by

itself, or by its directors, or officers, or servants, or
agents or employees or assigns as well as all those acting
in concert with it or on its behalf or claiming under or
through it or otherwise however from using or conducting
or marketing in any manner or in any way carrying on its
business at the said hotel by using in any manner
whatsoever the impugned name "DARJEELING LOUNGE:
or any other name or mark or word which is phonetically
or structurally similar or identical or deceptively similar
to the registered geographical indications "DARJEELING"
name and logo in the name of the plaintiff in any manner
or for any purpose whatsoever.
M/S.Sahee Leathers vs The Registrar Of Geographical

some of the private parties, who are not located in the geographical area, where the petitioner was
an authorised User of Geographical Indications, seems to have approached the respondent authority
i.e. the Registry of Geographical Indications at Chennai and filed Geographical Indication Petition
in Rectification Application No.1 of 2017 in Geographical Indication No.95. In this context, it is the
stand of the petitioner as projected by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that insofar
as the petitioner is concerned, since he has already been declared so in Geographical Indication
No.95 and once the same has already been registered and declared, the same cannot be tinkered
with, without the manner known to law, especially, under the provisions of the said Act.
thank you