Distinctiveness: The First Decision On The Protection of IP Rights On The Internet
Distinctiveness: The First Decision On The Protection of IP Rights On The Internet
Distinctiveness: The First Decision On The Protection of IP Rights On The Internet
The first decision on the protection of IP rights on the Internet.
The first landmark judgment on cybersquatting. The Delhi High Court, for the first time
ever in India, held that a domain name serves the same function as trademark and is
entitled to equal protection. The defendant had a domain name ‘Yahoo India!’ which was
identical and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s trademark ‘Yahoo!’. The court held that
internet users would be confused and deceived into believing that both the domain
names have the same source. The defendant took a defense that it had put a disclaimer
on its website. However, it was observed that a mere disclaimer was not sufficient
because the nature of the internet is such that use of a similar domain name cannot be
rectified by a disclaimer and it does not matter that ‘yahoo’ is a dictionary word. The
name possesses acquired distinctiveness and uniqueness and was largely associated
with the plaintiff.
the Bombay High Court, in Rediff Communication v. Cyberbooth & Anr 2000 PTC 209 also
observed that the value and importance of a domain name is like a corporate asset of a
company.
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. The
plaintiff company was assigned all rights, titles and interests in the personaliy of the artist
along with the trademark, Daler Mehendi. The plaintiff argued that the unauthorized or
unlicensed use of the artist’s reputation with respect to goods or services will deceive the
public into believing that the goods and services are associated with the singer and
hence, would lead to passing off. The plaintiff further submitted that such use was done
for commercial exploitation without adequate permission from the person or any other
authorized by him and shall constitute infringement of the person’s right to publicity.
Character merchandising is an area of law that is still unexplored in India. This was the
first case that dealt with the issue of celebrity merchandising where the publicity rights of
the artist was given due recognition.
PHONETIC SIMILARITY
Patents section 84
This landmark judgment is the first-ever case in India dealing with granting of a compulsory license
under an application made under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970
Read more at Legal Bites © Reserved: https://www.legalbites.in/5-leading-cases-intellectual-
property-rights/
https://www.legalbites.in/5-leading-cases-intellectual-property-rights/
Diamond v. Chakrabarty[5]
whole trademark
https://blog.ipleaders.in/trademark-law-in-india/
section 9 :
https://www.legalbites.in/grounds-for-refusal-register-a-trademark/
https://www.intepat.com/blog/trademark/grounds-of-refusal-of-a-trademark-in-india/
https://lawcirca.com/what-are-the-grounds-for-refusal-of-registration-of-a-trademark/
https://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/laws/trademark-law-in-india-law-and-case-laws.html
https://www.vakilno1.com/legal-news/well-known-trademark-india.html
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3125-well-known-trademark.html
https://www.quickcompany.in/articles/rights-and-protection-of-well-known-trademark-in-india
https://www.intepat.com/blog/trademark/unregistered-vs-registered-
trademark/#:~:text=Registration%20of%20a%20trademark%20gives%20to%20the
%20registered,trademark%20in%20the%20manner%20provided%20by%20the%20Act.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/trademark-law-in-india/