Delhi HC Declines Snapdeal’s Plea in Trademark Infringement Matter

Delhi HC Declines Snapdeal’s Plea in Trademark Infringement Matter

The Delhi High Court (HC) has recently declined the plea filed by Snapdeal (an Indian e-commerce company based out of New Delhi) seeking temporary relief against Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) in a Trademark Infringement issue.

Snapdeal was looking forward to getting the suspension done of all registrations granted by the registrars alleging that they infringed upon its ‘Snapdeal’ trademark.

It argued by saying that third parties having no connection with it have been registering domain names comprising the word or thread ‘Snapdeal,’ engaging in unauthorized activities like offering lucky draws through websites operating under the domain names in question and acting as customer service centers for Snapdeal’s offerings without obtaining its permission.

The Delhi HC, in this matter, said that it couldn’t stop or restrict such DNRs from issuing Trademark Registration for the ‘Snapdeal’ mark since it is, in general, not legitimate for the Court to hold in well advance that every alternative domain name comprising the term ‘Snapdeal’ would necessarily be infringing in nature.

A DNR manages the reservations of domain names while also assigning the IP addresses to the domain names in question. However, the Delhi HC stated that DNRs are also responsible for ensuring that the alternative domain names do not infringe upon any already existing Registered Trademarks. Furthermore, it mentioned that in the scenario where DNRs offer brokerage services for deceptively identical names, they would be held liable for trademark infringement. The Court even asked the DNRs to suspend any algorithm that works in the manner to create a possibility of making infringing alternative domain names available. It concluded by mentioning that DNRs cannot claim safe harbor protection in such matters.

In a recent statement delivered, a Snapdeal spokesperson said the company is pleased to see how the Delhi HC held that it is the responsibility of the DNRs to ensure that the alternative domain names offered by them do not infringe upon any already existing registered trademarks.

In its petition filed before the Delhi HC, Snapdeal had sought an injunction against the DNRs from offering any domain name containing its ‘Snapdeal’ trademark. While declining an interim relief, a single judge bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar said the Court couldn’t pass an order operating in the future, i.e., restricting the DNRs from offering the registration of any domain name, including the thread or word ‘Snapdeal,’ as the same would be attributing the Court clairvoyance that it does not possess. The Court further mentioned that Snapdeal would, therefore, be required to file a petition every time there is a domain name that it finds to be infringing. In its judgment, the Court agreed that it would undoubtedly be a long and cumbersome exercise, which can’t be helped as there is no shortcut to justice. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Nike Sues StockX Alleging Trademark Infringement in Digital Token Launch

Nike Sues StockX Alleging Trademark Infringement in Digital Token Launch

The US-based multinational corporation, Nike, has recently filed a Trademark Infringement lawsuit over unauthorized Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) against StockX in a federal court in New York.

StockX is an online reselling platform based in Detroit. It is engaged in reselling handbags, sneakers, and other goods. Last year in April, StockX raised $255m in funding, resulting in the company valuing at $3.8bn.

Headquartered near Beaverton, Oregon, in the Portland metropolitan area, Nike is engaged in the designing, development, manufacturing, and global sales and marketing of sports apparel, footwear, equipment, accessories, and other services.

The sportswear giant has alleged that StockX has begun selling new virtual products by using Nike’s trademarks without obtaining its permission. According to Nike, StockX has sold even more than 500 Nike-branded Vault NFTs so far.

In this matter, Nike has filed a 50-page lawsuit against StockX alleging trademark infringement with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In its complaint filed, Nike has asserted that StockX is ‘minting’ NFTs that prominently use trademarks owned by Nike without its authorization or approval. The sportswear giant has further mentioned that StockX is even involved in marketing those NFTs by using Nike’s goodwill and selling them at heavily inflated prices to unsuspecting customers who believe or are most likely to believe that such ‘investible digital assets’ (as referred to by StockX) are authorized by Nike when in reality they are not.

As per Nike, it has never approved or authorized Nike-branded Vault NFTs sold and marketed by StockX. The sportswear giant strongly believes that such unsanctioned products are very much likely to mislead the customers, create a fake association between such products and Nike, and dilute Nike’s widely-recognized trademarks. It mentioned that the unapproved and unauthorized branding of Vault NFTs with Nike trademarks would jeopardize the capacity of Nike’s widely-known Registered Trademarks to identify its own set of digital goods in the metaverse and beyond and even affect its overall reputation through an association with inferior digital products.

Nike has written in its lawsuit that despite recognizing firsthand the enormous value of its brands, StockX chose to compete in the NFT market by not taking the time to create or establish its Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), but instead by conspicuously freeriding, that too almost exclusively, on the back of Nike’s widely-known trademarks and their associated goodwill.

Nike also mentioned that use of its trademarks by StockX to enter the digital collectible market prevents the sportswear giant of its exclusive right to use its registered trademarks within the medium.

In this case, StockX has replied by saying it has never stated or implied that the NFTs are tied, associated with, sponsored by, or officially connected to a third-party brand. StockX is confident that its customers understand the difference between its Vault NFTs and the third-party products to which they correspond.

Katy Cockrel, the Vice President of Communications at StockX, has said that StockX customers have been trading a wide range of products on the StockX website, thereby trusting the platform to verify their authenticity and shipping products back and forth in each trade.

As part of its lawsuit, Nike has requested damages and that the court in its judgment would stop StockX from selling NFTs possessing Nike’s trademarks.

Nike filed this lawsuit against StockX after purchasing RTFKT Studios (an apparel and footwear startup based on NFTs) for an undisclosed sum in December.

RTFKT Studios specializes in creating virtual sneaker designs, memes, and many other collectible exclusives inspired by video games.

According to several reports, the sportswear giant has plans to launch various virtual products later this month. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

EdTech Company upGrad Sues Scaler Alleging Trademark Infringement

EdTech Company upGrad Sues Scaler Alleging Trademark Infringement

EdTech firm, upGrad, has recently filed a Trademark Infringement lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against its fellow EdTech company called Scaler. According to upGrad, Scaler has violated the Intellectual Property (IP) related to its trademark. The company has now sought damages worth more than rupees three crores.

upGrad has accused Scaler of illegally using its business/brand name, i.e., ‘upGrad,’ on Google Ads to appear on top of the search results on Google, thereby gaining illicit benefits.

As per a recent press statement issued, the Delhi High Court, in this case, has granted an ad-interim injunction in upGrad’s favor. Also, until further notice, the Court has ordered Scaler not to bid on the Registered Trademarks (or any other variants) owned by upGrad using Google Ads or any other keyword program.

The CEO (India) at upGrad, Arjun Mohan, said in a recent statement that the lawsuit filed would ensure the protection of upGrad’s IP and trademarks and would also discourage unauthorized and unlawful usage in the future. He further said that upGrad has undoubtedly made considerable investments in building its brand name, which makes it even more essential for them to safeguard their rights. He also mentioned that the team at upGrad is looking forward to evaluating and filing trademark infringement lawsuits against other EdTech firms involved in similar Google Ads bidding activity.

Quite recently, the Delhi High Court, in a similar Google Ads lawsuit, granted an interim injunction in favor of MakeMyTrip (an Indian online travel company headquartered in Gurugram, Haryana) and against its competitor, HappyEasyGo (an online platform that caters to act as a one-stop solution for travel needs). In the same lawsuit and as part of the recent orders passed, the Court also directed Google to suspend/block the Google Ads account owned by HappyEasyGo.

In another lawsuit filed on similar grounds by DRS Logistics (one of the most trusted names in India in the field of logistics and transport), the Delhi High Court said that Google could never really exonerate itself from the liability of ensuring that a specific keyword doesn’t infringe upon a registered trademark. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

PhonePe Decides to File a Fresh Lawsuit Against BharatPe Alleging Trademark Infringement

PhonePe Decides to File a Fresh Lawsuit Against BharatPe Alleging Trademark Infringement

PhonePe (a digital payments and financial services company headquartered in Bangalore, India) has recently decided to file a fresh lawsuit against BharatPe’s ‘buy now, pay later’ platform known as PostPe over Trademark Infringement. For this, PhonePe is now withdrawing its previous petition (over PostPe violating the ‘Pe’ trademark of the brand) filed in the Bombay High Court.

The Flipkart-owned PhonePe said in a recent statement delivered that the company would file a fresh lawsuit against BharatPe and continue opposing the use of ‘PostPe’ or ‘postpe’ mark ardently.

PhonePe had earlier approached the Bombay High Court to seek an injunction for restraining ‘Resilient Innovations’ (which operates BharatPe) from misusing its Registered Trademarks by using and promoting the ‘PostPe’ or ‘postpe’ mark.

The Court, during the hearing, noted that Resilient Innovations’ PostPe mark is indeed visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to the PhonePe mark, due to which, even it thought that the ‘PostPe’ or ‘postpe’ mark is a natural evolution of the word PhonePe and has emanated from the same. However, for addressing some specific observations noted by the Court in the pleadings filed by PhonePe, the company is now withdrawing the lawsuit. It will be seen filing a fresh suit for opposing the adoption of the mark ‘PostPe’ or ‘postpe’ mark by Resilient Innovations. PhonePe said that while allowing the withdrawal of the lawsuit and keeping the contentions and rights of both parties open, the Court granted it the liberty to come up with a fresh lawsuit.

A BharatPe spokesperson said in a statement delivered that the company doesn’t wish to comment on any part of the recent proceedings in the Bombay High Court that haven’t been recorded in the order passed. He further added that the company would eagerly wait for the receipt of the order that has recently been passed by the Bombay High Court to maintain the dignity of the entire legal process. He also mentioned that the bottom line of the case remains that PhonePe has now withdrawn its previous lawsuit, and it is needless to say that BharatPe would continue defending any legal action that PhonePe threatens to use against it.

In the meantime, PostPe is heavily advertising itself across various mediums. Recently, it came up with the ‘De Dena Aaram Se’ campaign, which is live across multiple TV and digital channels – throughout the ongoing ICC World Cup 2021 and the festive season. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Guidelines to Prevent Intellectual Property Issues in the Virtual World

Trademark Infringement

Virtual reality (VR) is a technology that has been surrounding us, in different forms, for the past many years. Although the technology is in effect since the mid-twentieth century, the hike in its popularity came now due to the rapid technological advancements in mobile data and other relevant services. As the cost of VR devices is falling continuously, even ordinary people can afford them at the moment. Therefore, large numbers of entrepreneurs are striving to make profits by driving remarkable consumers through advanced and affordable VR services. If you also want to grow your business with the help of this technology, don’t forget to emphasize some legal considerations.

Below is the crucial information that will aid you in evading issues related to your Intellectual Property (IP) assets while investing in virtual reality technology

Virtual Reality

VR or virtual reality is a simulated technological environment, including the computer-generated, three-dimensional images that enable the users to communicate to the real world by utilizing electronic gadgets, such as:

  • Sensor-fitted gloves
  • Helmets having a special screen

These environments are self-contained and thus, do not allow people to have direct interaction with the real world.

Trademarks

Usage of third-party marks is the main thing people need to consider in association with trademarks related to VR. Virtual Reality technology-based service providers who want to deploy third-party marks on their headsets or in their content should use them after getting permission from the owner. As the incidental inclusion of Registered Trademarks is not always fair, sometimes it may result in Trademark Infringement issues. Hence, it is better to use the marks after being permitted.

If any entrepreneur provides VR service by using a mark in the course of trade for driving commercial benefits, then he or she appears to (intentionally or unintentionally) infringe that mark. For instance, if a service provider (in a fashion-based VR or a game) starts selling an item having a third-party mark on it, he possibly infringes the trademark. It is true even in cases where the businesses use virtual currency.

Copyrights

No matter, whether you are using or not using the copyright-protected assets in the course of trade or anything else, accessing the assets without being allowed by the owner can lead to Copyright Infringement. VR environment facilitates the users with a lot of options to utilize the original creative images, text, videos, and music, but with the considerable risks of infringing others’ rights.

VR software also allows businesses to use the work by altering or modifying it. As per the fair use doctrine, people can deploy or change copyright-protected assets without seeking permission from owners. But note that this policy is not applicable everywhere and thus, can make the users face legal concerns in many cases. Therefore, it is vital for the service providers to use, change, or reproduce the work after attaining permission for the same.

Conclusion

Everyday news, rapidly growing usage, and many other things regarding virtual reality are resulting in predictions that it could be the next big thing, which will serve the digital market with remarkable benefits. But as the legal considerations around this technology and their implications are continuously increasing, there is a dire need to understand it in the context of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).Not just trademarks, copyrights, and patents, but many other legal subjects, including product liability, data protection, etc., are also related to the new virtual reality age. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com/