CGPDTM

Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Indian Businessman in ‘ELFY’ Trademark Dispute with Pakistani National

by

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to an Indian businessman in a trademark dispute involving the mark ‘ELFY’ against Pakistani national Mohammed Younus Sheikh. The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and upholding fair business practices.

Background of the Case

The dispute centers around the use of the ‘ELFY’ trademark, which the Indian businessman claims to have developed and used in commerce for several years. Mohammed Younus Sheikh, a Pakistani national, had claimed that his company had been using the ‘ELFY’ mark for industrial adhesives since 1981. Sheikh’s company had registered the mark in Pakistan and asserted that it had acquired a transborder reputation, particularly in India.

The Indian businessman contended that he had been using the ‘ELFY’ mark in India since 1988 and had built a significant reputation and goodwill associated with the mark. He argued that Sheikh’s adoption of the same mark in India was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm his business interests.

Court’s Findings

The Delhi High Court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the dates of adoption and use of the ‘ELFY’ mark, marketing materials, and consumer testimonials. The court found that the Indian businessman had established prior use of the mark in India and had built a recognizable brand associated with ‘ELFY.’

In contrast, the court noted that Mohammed Younus Sheikh had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate prior use or registration of the ‘ELFY’ mark in India. The court emphasized the principle of territoriality in trademark law, asserting that the rights to a trademark are generally confined to the jurisdiction where the mark is used and recognized.

Legal Implications

This ruling reinforces the importance of establishing and maintaining clear records of trademark use and registration. It also highlights the challenges businesses may face when operating in international markets, where the risk of trademark disputes can arise due to similarities in branding.

Legal experts suggest that businesses should conduct thorough trademark searches before adopting new marks and consider registering their trademarks in key markets to protect their brand identity and prevent potential conflicts.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in trademark law and the need for businesses to be vigilant in protecting their intellectual property. As global commerce continues to expand, understanding and navigating trademark rights across different jurisdictions will be crucial for businesses seeking to safeguard their brands.

Anthropic Faces Legal Scrutiny Over AI-Fabricated Citation in Copyright Lawsuit

by
Anthropic, the AI company known for its chatbot Claude, is under legal scrutiny after an expert witness allegedly cited a fabricated academic article in a copyright infringement case. The lawsuit, filed by music publishers including Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO, accuses Anthropic of using copyrighted song lyrics without permission to train Claude.

The Alleged Fabrication
During a recent court hearing, Matt Oppenheim, representing the plaintiffs, claimed that Olivia Chen, an Anthropic data scientist, cited a non-existent academic paper to support arguments about how often Claude reproduces copyrighted lyrics. The article was allegedly generated by Anthropic’s AI and falsely attributed to a reputable journal. Judge mentioned the incident as a “serious issue” and demanded a prompt response from Anthropic. However, she denied an immediate deposition of Chen.

Anthropic’s Response
Anthropic acknowledged the citation error but suggested it might relate to a different, legitimate article. The company has not provided further details on how the AI-generated citation occurred or what measures are being taken to prevent such incidents in the future.

Broader Legal Implications
This development adds to the mounting legal challenges faced by Anthropic and other AI companies over the use of copyrighted materials in training data. In a separate lawsuit, authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson allege that Anthropic used pirated books, including their own works, to train Claude. The authors claim that Anthropic’s AI model profits from “strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity” behind their works.
Computerworld

The legal landscape is evolving as courts grapple with the intersection of AI technology and intellectual property rights. While AI companies argue that training models on existing content falls under “fair use,” copyright holders contend that their works are being exploited without permission or compensation.

Conclusion
The alleged AI-generated citation in the copyright lawsuit against Anthropic underscores the complexities and challenges of integrating AI into legal and creative domains. As the case progresses, it may set important precedents for how AI companies handle copyrighted materials and the ethical considerations surrounding AI-generated content.

Delhi High Court Affirms Mandatory Timelines Under Rule 100 of Trade Marks Rules 2017

by
In the ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that timelines are mandatory and cannot be waived, even in exceptional circumstances.

Background of the Case
The case arose from a trademark opposition filed by Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. against Dabur India Ltd. Sun Pharma had submitted its evidence within the prescribed two-month period; however, there was a delay of three days in serving the evidence to Dabur. The Registrar of Trade Marks deemed the opposition abandoned due to this delay. Sun Pharma appealed the decision, arguing that the filing was timely, and the delay in service should not result in abandonment.

Court’s Analysis
The Delhi High Court examined the evolution of the Trade Marks Rules, noting that previous versions allowed for discretionary extensions of time. However, under the 2017 Rules, such discretion has been removed, indicating a legislative intent to enforce strict adherence to timelines. The Court referred to Rule 100, which specifies that evidence must be filed within two months from the date of service of the counter-statement.

Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a clear reminder to stakeholders in the trademark domain about the critical importance of adhering to statutory timelines. With the removal of discretionary powers to extend deadlines, parties must exercise due diligence to comply with all procedural requirements within the stipulated timeframes.

Legal professionals and businesses are advised to stay informed about the implications of this judgment and ensure that all actions in trademark opposition proceedings are completed within the prescribed timelines to safeguard their interests.