some cases from corporate sector facing intellectual property issues.

1. Intellectual
property Cases
from corporate

4. In 2007, the high-end signature hand-bag and luggage maker,
Louis Vuitton Malletier, lost an outrageous copyright
infringement case against comedy fashion company Haute
Diggity Dog.
• The comedy designers had released a line of parody products
named Chewy Vuitton, to go along with other memorable
knock-offs such as Chewnel No.5 and Sniffany & Co.
• Remarkably, the U.S Court of Appeals ruled against the claim
of copyright breach, stating that because of the element of
parody, the products were adequately differentiated and
unique, thereby negating any copyright or trademark
infringement.

5. Mattle V/S MGA

6. • Mattel Inc., creators of the Barbie doll, won a huge
case against rival toy doll maker, MGA Entertainment
Inc. back in 2008.
• MGA claimed that Mattel had copied their latest range of
Bratz dolls in order to steal back MGA’s dominant market
share. The designs were simply too similar, featuring
disproportionately large heads and slim bodies.

7. • However, lawyers working on Mattel’s behalf managed to
turn the case around, proving that an ex-Mattel designer
who had subsequently worked on the design team for
MGA had used designs that he had created while
employed at Mattel.
• In fact, those doll designs were still the legal property of
Mattel. MGA was ordered to pay damages to the tune of
$100,000,000 and temporarily remove their dolls from
shelves. It just goes to show, instigating an intellectual
property claim can end up being an expensive
miscalculation.

9. Coca cola V/S Parle
• Coca Cola was the largest brand of soft drinks operating
in 200 countries.
• Defendant which was earlier known as Aqua Minerals
Pvt. Ltd., was a part of Parle group of Industries.
• The owners of defendant, Mr. Ramesh Chauhan and Mr.
Prakash Chauhan, on September 18, 1993, sold the
trademarks , formulation rights, know- how, intellectual
property rights, goodwill etc. of their products THUMBS
UP, LIMCA, GOLD SPOT, MAAZA to the Coca cola.

10. • The company Bisleri Sales Ltd, had the secret beverage
base for manufacturing maaza and was an affiliated
company of Defendant
• On September 12, 1993, several agreements were signed
between both the parties, such as, deed of assignment,
goodwill assignment, know-how, confidentiality and non-
use agreement, non- compete agreement, general
assignment, etc. to give effect to the sale for a
considerable money value.
• Then, the plaintiff was envisaged with the right to sell
the product Maaza within the territory of India.

11. • The defendant retained the trademark rights of MAAZA in
respect of other countries where it had been registered.
• In March 2008, the defendant got aware of the fact that the
plaintiff had filed for registration of MAAZA in turkey.
• • As a result of this, it sent plaintiff a legal notice repudiating
the Licensing Agreement and made it devoid of all other
selling rights. • The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent
injunction and damages for infringement of trademark and
passing off, as the defendant had completely ignored many
irrevocable and absolute rights embarked upon the plaintiff.

12. • The court had the territorial jurisdiction over the matter,
because the defendant had issued a news article in Delhi
edition of Times of India, and the reports itself created the
jurisdiction of the court as they showed his intention to
use the mark by way of groundless threat. Also, the
defendant had a factory at Shivaji Marg in New Delhi and
the threat was also given as notice from New Delhi itself.

13. • In view of negative covenant under Section 42 of the
Specific Relief Act, the defendant no. 1 is not entitled to
use the mark MAAZA in India. Hence, the interim order
of injunction was granted to prevent the plaintiff from
irreparable loss and injury.
• the Delhi HC expressly barred Bisleri from selling Maaza
products, however, it is specified that the company may
continue to manufacture Maaza on Indian soil, provided
the stock is exported

15. • On September 17, Emami Ltd served a legal notice to
Arbaaz Khan Productions for using the phrase "zandu
balm" in the "Munni badnaam hui" song of the Salman
Khan blockbuster Dabangg citing copyright violation. •
By using the brand name in the song, you have not only
violated the copyright of my clients, but you have also
made an attempt to defame the reputation of my clients
and the product manufactured by them, said ZANDU
BALM OFFICIALS

16. • The company asked the producer to remove the phrase
"Zandu Balm" or delete the song from the film altogether.
Emami, which acquired Zandu Pharmaceuticals in 2008
for Rs 700 crore, is a Rs 1,000 crore entity today. • Some
inside news on September 19, "The issue is not as serious
as it is being made out to be. They have sent a notice. The
company is unlikely to take the matter to court. In fact,
they are considering an out of court settlement, and then
using the song to promote the product." And Arbaaz Khan
said, "Now that our film is a big success, such things are
bound to happen. Everyone wants a share of the pie."

17. • When the song’s promos went on air, Emami decided to
strike a barter deal— allowing the film’s producers the
use of Zandu Balm in return for rights to the song for its
own advertisement. • Also, Mallaika Arora Khan, had to
do an advertisement for the brand free of cost as the
compensation.

18. Thank you