In today’s globalized marketplace, intellectual property (IP) law plays a critical role in protecting the rights of creators, innovators, and businesses. Two common forms of IP protection that frequently intersect are plant variety denominations (PVDs) and trademarks. While both legal mechanisms serve distinct purposes, the conflict between them has become increasingly relevant in agricultural and commercial sectors, especially as the international trade of genetically modified (GM) crops and plant products has expanded. This article provides a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional comparison of the conflict between plant variety denominations and trademarks, highlighting the legal frameworks, challenges, and strategies employed by various jurisdictions to address this issue.
Understanding Plant Variety Denominations and Trademarks
Plant Variety Denominations (PVDs)
A Plant Variety Denomination (PVD) refers to the name given to a new plant variety to distinguish it from other varieties. Under the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), breeders of new plant varieties are required to assign a unique denomination. The main objective of a PVD is to provide uniformity and consistency in identifying plant varieties and ensuring that breeders and farmers can clearly distinguish one variety from another.
Trademarks
It typically consists of a word, logo, slogan, or other design element, and is registered with the relevant IP office for protection against unauthorized use by competitors. Trademarks serve to protect the reputation of a product or service and ensure consumers can identify the source of goods.
The Conflict
The conflict arises when the same name is used for both a plant variety denomination and a trademark. This situation creates confusion in the marketplace and may lead to legal disputes. On one hand, PVDs are intended to be public identifiers that cannot be monopolized for commercial purposes, while trademarks serve to protect commercial interests. The tension arises when these distinct legal protections overlap, leading to complex legal questions regarding priority, use, and enforcement.
The Key Issues in the Conflict Between PVDs and Trademarks
Prioritization of Rights
The most fundamental issue is which right takes precedence: the plant variety denomination or the trademark? For instance, a company may register a trademark for a product using a specific plant variety’s name, but a breeder may later apply for a PVD for that very variety. Which right should prevail when the two overlap?
Geographical Jurisdictions and Conflicting Laws
The regulation of plant variety denominations and trademarks varies widely across jurisdictions, creating additional layers of complexity. Some countries, such as the United States and the European Union, have distinct laws regarding PVDs and trademarks, with clear guidelines on how to handle conflicts. Others, like India, have emerging or less defined laws that can lead to uncertainty for businesses and breeders.
Market Confusion and Consumer Protection
Both PVDs and trademarks are intended to prevent consumer confusion. However, when a plant variety name is also used as a trademark, it can be unclear whether the product in question refers to the plant variety or the commercial source. This confusion can lead to misbranding, deceptive advertising, and unfair competition, all of which affect consumer choice and protection.
Global Trade and Plant Breeding Innovation
The international trade of plants and plant products has amplified the need for clarity regarding the protection of plant variety denominations and trademarks. The rise of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and cross-border plant sales has made it more crucial than ever to determine the rules for competing intellectual property claims that affect international trade.
Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to the Conflict
United States
In the United States, plant variety denominations are governed by the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO). Under the PVPA, a plant variety is granted protection if it is novel, distinct, uniform, and stable. The denomination given to the variety must not conflict with any existing trademarks.
However, the U.S. allows for the coexistence of PVDs and trademarks. When a plant variety denomination is similar to an existing trademark, the trademark holder may challenge the use of the name in court, citing the likelihood of confusion. Additionally, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) evaluates trademark applications to ensure that they do not conflict with prior PVDs.
In practice, this means that while a plant variety name may be protected as a PVD, it could be subject to trademark protection if used commercially for branding purposes, provided that there is no conflict with existing trademarks. In case of conflicts, courts or administrative bodies can weigh the competing rights and determine which right prevails.
European Union
In the European Union, the conflict between PVDs and trademarks is addressed through a well-established legal framework. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) handles trademark registration, while the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) manages plant variety denominations.
Under EU law, a plant variety denomination cannot be registered as a trademark if it is identical or confusingly similar to an existing PVD. This rule is designed to prevent consumers from being misled about the nature of the product. Additionally, the CPVO requires that any name used for a plant variety must not conflict with existing trademarks in the marketplace.
In the case of a trademark conflict with a PVD, the EUIPO and CPVO cooperate to assess the potential for consumer confusion. If a trademark application conflicts with a registered PVD, the trademark registration is likely to be refused. This system ensures that plant variety names are kept distinct and not used in a way that could deceive consumers.
India
India has a unique approach to plant variety denominations and trademarks. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPV&FR Act) governs the registration of plant variety denominations in India. The Indian Trademark Act allows for the registration of trademarks related to plants and agricultural products, but there are no specific provisions dealing with conflicts between PVDs and trademarks.
In practice, Indian authorities evaluate whether a plant variety denomination conflicts with a trademark on a case-by-case basis. If the same name is used for both a plant variety and a trademark, Indian courts may rule that the trademark has priority if it was registered first, or they may enforce the PVD if it is determined to be the dominant interest.
Given the developing nature of India’s IP laws, there is still a level of uncertainty in the enforcement of rights related to plant varieties and trademarks. However, the Indian government has been working toward improving the legal framework to ensure clearer distinctions between the two.
Australia
Australia’s approach to the conflict between PVDs and trademarks is guided by the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act (PBR Act) and the Trade Marks Act. Under the PBR Act, the name of a plant variety must be distinctive and not cause confusion with existing trademarks. If there is a conflict, the trademark may be denied if it is found to infringe upon the rights of a registered plant variety denomination.
The Australian system allows for the coexistence of PVDs and trademarks, but businesses must carefully navigate both legal processes to avoid conflicts. When a plant variety denomination and a trademark are identical or confusingly similar, the Australian IP office assesses the likelihood of confusion and takes necessary action to ensure consumer protection and prevent unfair competition.
Conclusion
The conflict between plant variety denominations and trademarks is a complex and evolving issue in global intellectual property law. While PVDs and trademarks serve distinct functions, their overlap in the marketplace presents significant challenges for businesses, breeders, and IP authorities. Jurisdictions such as the United States, European Union, India, and Australia have developed frameworks to handle these conflicts, though the solutions often vary based on local legal cultures and practices.
As international trade and agricultural innovations continue to advance, it is crucial for policymakers to refine existing laws and ensure that the interests of plant breeders, trademark holders, and consumers are balanced. Stakeholders in the agricultural sector must be aware of the potential for conflict and consider legal strategies to protect their interests in both plant variety denominations and trademarks.
infringement
U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Corporate Separateness in Trademark Infringement Damages – Key Implications for Lanham Act Claims
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. that underscores the importance of corporate separateness in calculating damages for trademark infringement. The Court vacated a $43 million profit disgorgement award, a ruling that has far-reaching implications for corporate liability and the recovery of profits under the Lanham Act.
Case Overview: Dewberry Engineers vs. Dewberry Group
The case centers around Dewberry Engineers, a holder of the “Dewberry” trademark, which filed a lawsuit against Dewberry Group, a competing real estate management company. Dewberry Engineers alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, along with a breach of contract claim under state law. The dispute arose from Dewberry Group’s unauthorized use of the Dewberry trademark in promoting its real estate services, despite a prior settlement agreement that prohibited such use.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dewberry Group violated the Lanham Act, concluding that the infringement was “intentional, willful, and in bad faith.” Despite Dewberry Group reporting no profits and relying on cash infusions from its owner, the District Court aggregated the profits of Dewberry Group and its affiliates—non-party entities that held income-generating properties—to calculate the damages, awarding nearly $43 million. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, citing the “economic reality” of Dewberry Group’s operations.
Supreme Court’s Holding: Corporate Separateness Matters
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that profit disgorgement under the Lanham Act is limited to the profits of the named defendant—Dewberry Group in this case—and does not extend to its non-party affiliates. The Court emphasized the longstanding legal principle that separately incorporated entities are distinct legal units with their own rights and obligations.
In this case, because Dewberry Group’s affiliates were not named as defendants and no evidence was presented to pierce the corporate veil, the Court held that the profits of these affiliates could not be included in calculating “defendant’s profits” under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). As the Court noted in remanding the case for a new damages award, “The ‘defendant’s profits’ are the defendant’s profits, not its plus its affiliates.”
Key Unanswered Questions
While the Court addressed the issue of corporate separateness, it did not fully resolve several critical aspects of the case. Specifically, the Court declined to comment on whether the lower court could have used the Lanham Act’s “just-sum” provision (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)) to award a more equitable recovery by considering affiliate profits. This provision allows courts to adjust profit-based recovery when it is deemed “inadequate or excessive,” but the Supreme Court did not rule on whether this approach would have been appropriate.
Additionally, the Court did not address whether plaintiffs could rely on other methods—such as looking beyond a defendant’s accounting records—to assess the “true financial gain” of an infringing party. Nor did it definitively rule on the potential for veil-piercing, leaving open the possibility for future arguments regarding corporate formalities and liability.
Justice Sotomayor’s Concurring Opinion: A Caution on Creative Accounting
In her concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns that corporate separateness could be exploited by defendants to avoid liability through creative accounting. She urged that courts remain vigilant in considering “economic realities” when calculating trademark infringement damages. Justice Sotomayor suggested that the trial court might reopen the record to explore methods of calculating profits that go beyond a defendant’s books, particularly when analyzing financial inflows from affiliates.
Implications for Trademark Owners and Businesses
The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the importance of corporate formalities and the need for careful litigation strategy. Trademark owners pursuing Lanham Act claims must ensure they identify and include all relevant entities from the outset of litigation, especially when dealing with related or affiliate companies that may have benefited from the infringement.
Failing to name all responsible parties could result in an unenforceable judgment, even if the defendant is found liable. Plaintiffs should also consider whether a veil-piercing argument could be made in cases where affiliates may be used to shield profits from infringement.
While the Court’s decision focused narrowly on the aggregation of affiliate profits, it left open significant questions regarding the methods available for determining a defendant’s true financial gain. This leaves room for further litigation on the most accurate and fair way to calculate damages under the Lanham Act.
Conclusion
The Dewberry Group decision reinforces the principle that corporate separateness must be respected in calculating trademark infringement damages under the Lanham Act. It also raises important considerations for plaintiffs in trademark disputes, urging early and strategic planning to ensure a comprehensive approach to damages. While the Court’s ruling narrows the scope of profit recovery, it also leaves open avenues for creative legal arguments and future litigation on corporate liability.
Madras High Court ruled in favor of Pfizer’s patent rights
In a recent global patent disputes, the Madras High Court has pronounced a ruling concerning the ongoing patent dispute in the United States involving Pfizer’s drug, VYNDAMAX (also known as TAFAMIDIS), which is used to treat a rare heart condition called transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM).
The case is in focus due to the high stakes involved, as Pfizer holds a patent for VYNDAMAX, which is a formulation of TAFAMIDIS, a drug that stabilizes transthyretin (TTR) protein in the heart, which reduces the life-threatening effects of ATTR-CM. Pfizer’s patent rights on the drug have been contested in several jurisdictions, but this ruling in the Madras High Court is particularly noteworthy, as it reflects the broader international implications of the ongoing patent conflict.
In its order, the Madras High Court emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property, especially for life-saving drugs like VYNDAMAX in pharma sector. The court ruled that Pfizer’s patent for TAFAMIDIS must be upheld in India, despite challenges from generic manufacturers. This ruling reinforces Pfizer’s exclusive rights over the formulation, production or distribution of VYNDAMAX in the Indian market.
The Madras High Court’s decision is groundbreaking for the global pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the realm of patent enforcement. The ongoing patent dispute in the other countries like United States has sparked heated debates over access to affordable medicines versus protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies. VYNDAMAX is considered a breakthrough in the treatment of a condition that severely impacts the heart, and its exclusivity remains a point of contention in markets where generic alternatives are being sought.
Pfizer has expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it affirms the company’s commitment to innovation and patient care. The company further emphasized that the decision will help ensure that VYNDAMAX remains available to those who need it while protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical innovators.
Although, it is expected that this ruling will have limited direct effect on markets outside of India, but it does signify the growing importance of patent protection in the global pharmaceutical landscape. Stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, and competitors, are keenly awaiting further developments in this high-profile case.
As the patent battle continues across borders, it remains to be seen how other jurisdictions will respond to similar challenges regarding VYNDAMAX and whether further legal actions will alter the course of the ongoing dispute.
The case is in focus due to the high stakes involved, as Pfizer holds a patent for VYNDAMAX, which is a formulation of TAFAMIDIS, a drug that stabilizes transthyretin (TTR) protein in the heart, which reduces the life-threatening effects of ATTR-CM. Pfizer’s patent rights on the drug have been contested in several jurisdictions, but this ruling in the Madras High Court is particularly noteworthy, as it reflects the broader international implications of the ongoing patent conflict.
In its order, the Madras High Court emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property, especially for life-saving drugs like VYNDAMAX in pharma sector. The court ruled that Pfizer’s patent for TAFAMIDIS must be upheld in India, despite challenges from generic manufacturers. This ruling reinforces Pfizer’s exclusive rights over the formulation, production or distribution of VYNDAMAX in the Indian market.
The Madras High Court’s decision is groundbreaking for the global pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the realm of patent enforcement. The ongoing patent dispute in the other countries like United States has sparked heated debates over access to affordable medicines versus protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies. VYNDAMAX is considered a breakthrough in the treatment of a condition that severely impacts the heart, and its exclusivity remains a point of contention in markets where generic alternatives are being sought.
Pfizer has expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it affirms the company’s commitment to innovation and patient care. The company further emphasized that the decision will help ensure that VYNDAMAX remains available to those who need it while protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical innovators.
Although, it is expected that this ruling will have limited direct effect on markets outside of India, but it does signify the growing importance of patent protection in the global pharmaceutical landscape. Stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, and competitors, are keenly awaiting further developments in this high-profile case.
As the patent battle continues across borders, it remains to be seen how other jurisdictions will respond to similar challenges regarding VYNDAMAX and whether further legal actions will alter the course of the ongoing dispute.
First Solar sues JinkoSolar over Infringement of New Patent Technology
First Solar an US solar panel manufacturer, has initiated legal action against JinkoSolar (Chinese solar panel manufacturer), alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 9,130,074, which pertains to tunnel oxide passivated contact (TOPCon) solar technology. This patent was obtained by First Solar in 2013 through its aquiring of TetraSun, Inc.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. First Solar claims that JinkoSolar’s use of TOPCon technology infringes upon its patent rights. In defense, a JinkoSolar spokesperson stated that the company is having proof that the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against what it considers baseless allegations by First solar.
Currently, the legal action is part of a broader trend in the solar industry, where several major manufacturers are engaged in patent disputes over TOPCon technology. In October 2024, First Solar notified several large competitors, including JinkoSolar, of alleged infringements on its TOPCon patents.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the solar industry market and manufacturers , particularly concerning the development and commercialization of advanced solar technologies like TOPCon worldwide.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. First Solar claims that JinkoSolar’s use of TOPCon technology infringes upon its patent rights. In defense, a JinkoSolar spokesperson stated that the company is having proof that the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against what it considers baseless allegations by First solar.
Currently, the legal action is part of a broader trend in the solar industry, where several major manufacturers are engaged in patent disputes over TOPCon technology. In October 2024, First Solar notified several large competitors, including JinkoSolar, of alleged infringements on its TOPCon patents.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the solar industry market and manufacturers , particularly concerning the development and commercialization of advanced solar technologies like TOPCon worldwide.
Amazon to pay $39M to Lifestyle for trademark infringement
The Delhi High Court in a recent order on February 26, 2025, ordered Amazon to pay $39 million (approximately ₹340 crore) in damages to Lifestyle Equities CV for infringing upon its ‘Beverly Hills Polo Club’ trademark.
Lifestyle Equities had filed a trademark infringement suit in 2020, alleging that Amazon Technologies and associated sellers of amazon used a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on Amazon’s platform. The court had previously issued an interim injunction in October 2020, restraining Amazon and others from using the infringing logo and directing Amazon Seller Services to remove the infringing products from its platform.
During the proceedings it is found that the Cloudtail India, a major seller on Amazon.in, acknowledged its involvement in the sale of the infringing products and proposed a settlement that would include damages. The court also awarded damages of ₹4,78,484 against Cloudtail, representing 20% of its revenue from infringing products. Amazon Seller Services was removed from the list of involved parties, as it agreed to remove any future listings of infringing products.
This ruling has the importance of trademark protection and the legal consequences of infringement of intellectual property, particularly in the e-commerce sector.
Lifestyle Equities had filed a trademark infringement suit in 2020, alleging that Amazon Technologies and associated sellers of amazon used a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on Amazon’s platform. The court had previously issued an interim injunction in October 2020, restraining Amazon and others from using the infringing logo and directing Amazon Seller Services to remove the infringing products from its platform.
During the proceedings it is found that the Cloudtail India, a major seller on Amazon.in, acknowledged its involvement in the sale of the infringing products and proposed a settlement that would include damages. The court also awarded damages of ₹4,78,484 against Cloudtail, representing 20% of its revenue from infringing products. Amazon Seller Services was removed from the list of involved parties, as it agreed to remove any future listings of infringing products.
This ruling has the importance of trademark protection and the legal consequences of infringement of intellectual property, particularly in the e-commerce sector.
“Linezolid” Patent Revoked After Post-Grant Opposition by Symed Labs
The Indian Patent Office has revoked Patent No. 281489 (Application No. 201641013830) following a post-grant opposition filed by Symed Labs. The patent was granted on 20 March, 2017 and the post grant opposition was filed on 5 March, 2018. The patentee had also amended its claims during the opposition proceedings and urged that the application under Form 13 (for amendment of claims) be disposed of so as to be certain of the final set of allowed claims for the hearing. The revocation was based on several grounds:
Lack of Inventive Step (Obviousness): The controller concluded that the patent was found to lack an inventive step, meaning the claimed invention was obvious to someone skilled in the field.
Non-Patentability Under Section 3(d): The invention also did not meet the criteria for patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which states that new forms of known substances that do not result in enhanced efficacy.
Failure to Disclose Information Under Section 8: The patent holder failed to disclose required information as per Section 8 of the Patents Act 1970, which mandates the disclosure of including the disclosure of status of those applications, at the time of filing and during the prosecution of the patent. regarding corresponding foreign applications of this invention.
This patent pertained to Linezolid, an antibiotic used to treat pneumonia, skin infections, and drug-resistant tuberculosis. The earlier patent for Linezolid had expired on January 1, 2012. The revocation of this patent may have implications for the availability and pricing of Linezolid in India. This decision has highlighted the need for quality standards and more careful examination when it is about critical drugs, particularly in light of public health considerations and the potential for monopolistic practices.
Lack of Inventive Step (Obviousness): The controller concluded that the patent was found to lack an inventive step, meaning the claimed invention was obvious to someone skilled in the field.
Non-Patentability Under Section 3(d): The invention also did not meet the criteria for patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which states that new forms of known substances that do not result in enhanced efficacy.
Failure to Disclose Information Under Section 8: The patent holder failed to disclose required information as per Section 8 of the Patents Act 1970, which mandates the disclosure of including the disclosure of status of those applications, at the time of filing and during the prosecution of the patent. regarding corresponding foreign applications of this invention.
This patent pertained to Linezolid, an antibiotic used to treat pneumonia, skin infections, and drug-resistant tuberculosis. The earlier patent for Linezolid had expired on January 1, 2012. The revocation of this patent may have implications for the availability and pricing of Linezolid in India. This decision has highlighted the need for quality standards and more careful examination when it is about critical drugs, particularly in light of public health considerations and the potential for monopolistic practices.
Longi sues JinkoSolar for infringement of new patent technology
Longi, has filed lawsuits against JinkoSolar for their patent infringement, both the companies are leading players in the solar industry. The legal actions have been initiated in both countries China and the United States.
In China, Longi has filed the lawsuit at the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong and requested an immediate halt to the manufacturing, sales, and offers to sell the allegedly infringing products and other related activities to it. The Court has accepted the case, with an expected trial date of March 20.
In the United States, the lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement of Jinko Solar’s TOPCon and multiple other unspecified photovoltaic module products.
Longi claims that JinkoSolar has infringed upon its intellectual property (IP) related to solar technology, specifically patents concerning the production and design of solar cells and panels. This dispute comes out as both companies are at the forefront of solar technology innovation. The patents plays a critical role in protecting advancements in the highly competitive solar energy sector.
The lawsuits highlight the ongoing tensions in the renewable energy industry, where patent disputes are becoming increasingly common as companies rush to secure a competitive edge in the rapidly growing market for solar energy products. In these types of cases, the outcome can impact product sales, partnerships, and overall market positioning for the companies involved.
It remains to be seen how these lawsuits will unfold, but they signal the importance of intellectual property rights in the clean energy sector.
In China, Longi has filed the lawsuit at the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong and requested an immediate halt to the manufacturing, sales, and offers to sell the allegedly infringing products and other related activities to it. The Court has accepted the case, with an expected trial date of March 20.
In the United States, the lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement of Jinko Solar’s TOPCon and multiple other unspecified photovoltaic module products.
Longi claims that JinkoSolar has infringed upon its intellectual property (IP) related to solar technology, specifically patents concerning the production and design of solar cells and panels. This dispute comes out as both companies are at the forefront of solar technology innovation. The patents plays a critical role in protecting advancements in the highly competitive solar energy sector.
The lawsuits highlight the ongoing tensions in the renewable energy industry, where patent disputes are becoming increasingly common as companies rush to secure a competitive edge in the rapidly growing market for solar energy products. In these types of cases, the outcome can impact product sales, partnerships, and overall market positioning for the companies involved.
It remains to be seen how these lawsuits will unfold, but they signal the importance of intellectual property rights in the clean energy sector.
JinkoSolar has initiated a legal action against Waaree Energies for patented technology
JinkoSolar has filed an infringement against Waaree Energies and its U.S. based subsidiary, Waaree Solar Americas, alleging infringement of its n-type tunnel oxide passivated contact (TOPCon) patent number, US11,824,136B2 granted in 2023. It is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on February 7, 2025.
The above said patent is granted to JinkoSolar in 2023, pertains to solar cells, their manufacturing methods, and photovoltaic modules. JinkoSolar has also patented this technology in key global markets, including China, Japan, Australia, and the European Union.
Now a days, this legal action is part of a broader trend in the solar industry, where major manufacturers are actively defending their intellectual property rights related to advanced technologies like TOPCon. For example, Trina Solar has recently filed a lawsuit against Canadian Solar over alleged patent infringements concerning TOPCon cell technologies.
Waaree Energies, is India’s largest solar PV module manufacturer. It is the flagship company of the Waaree Group, founded in 1989. It operates four PV manufacturing facilities in Gujarat, India, with a combined capacity of almost 12 GW. In December 2024, Waaree Solar Americas began producing solar modules at its new 1.6 GW plant in Brookshire, Texas
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the solar industry, particularly concerning the protection and commercialization of IP rights related to advanced photovoltaic technologies.
“Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark: Delhi High Court
The recent judgement issued by Delhi High Court on February 7 says that the name “Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark which needs to be protected as per law.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while hearing a trademark suit filed by Tata Group and Sir Ratan Tata Trust against misusing the Tata brand, trademarks and the name of late Ratan Tata. [Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs Dr. Rajat Srivastava].
On February 7, 2025, the court prohibited Rajat Srivastava, from hosting an event under the name “Ratan Tata Icon Award.” The court also restricted him from using the name and photograph of the late Ratan Tata for any purpose, including conferring any awards. The judgement is to protect the reputation and legacy of Ratan Tata, a highly respected business figure and philanthropist. The injunction likely stems from concerns over the misuse of his name and image in a manner that could potentially mislead or cause confusion about his endorsement of such events.
Generally, a well-known trademark is a mark that has achieved such a high degree of recognition among the public. It’s a mark that’s so famous and recognizable that its mere presence evokes the brand in the minds of consumers.
The lawsuit filed by Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust emphasized the long-standing reputation and legacy of the Tata name, which has been a symbol of trust, quality, and ethical business practices in India for over 150 years. They argued that the unauthorized use of the Tata name and Ratan Tata’s image, particularly in the organization of events and awards, misled the public into thinking the Tata entities were endorsing them.
Rajat Srivastava and his organization, allegedly exploited the Tata brand’s goodwill by charging nomination fees for the event and promoting it across social media platforms. This created confusion among the public, making them believe the event was connected to or endorsed by the Tata Trusts. Despite the Tata Trusts issuing a takedown notice to stop such promotions, the defendants allegedly continued advertising the event, prompting the legal action.
The court ruled in favor of the Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trusts, granting them a permanent injunction against Rajat Srivastava and his organization. This means that the defendants are now permanently prohibited from using the Tata name, trademarks, or Ratan Tata’s image in any future events, promotions, or activities. However, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit confirming their commitment to not engage in such activities going forward.
While the plaintiffs, Tata Group and the Tata Trusts, expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling, they chose to waive any claims for damages or legal costs. This decision emphasizes that their main focus is on protecting the integrity of the Tata brand and preventing future misuse, rather than seeking any financial compensation.
Mixed result for Nokia and Amazon in dispute over streaming technology
Nokia and Amazon had a mixed outcome at the Düsseldorf Regional Court as both companies were navigate legal disputes related to streaming technology.
Amazon and Nokia are involved in a legal dispute concerning multiple streaming technology patents, with the Regional Court Düsseldorf playing a key role in the rulings.
Patent EP 2 271 048 B1 (EP 048) filed by Amazon, explains a method for provisioning multimedia services that display additional information (like actor details) alongside streaming video. The court ruled that Amazon infringed this patent (case ID: 4c O 49/23). The court ordered Amazon to stop using the infringing technology in their video software and devices. Additionally, Amazon must provide information regarding the use of the technology since January 1, 2023, and compensate Nokia for damages incurred due to the infringement. To enforce this ruling, Nokia has to provide security in the amount of €646.75 million.
Patent EP 2 130 150 B1 (EP 150) filed by Nokia, discloses a systems and methods for arranging media files, such as recommending additional content to users. The court dismissed the infringement claim for this patent (case ID 4c O 50/23), meaning Amazon was not found to infringe on this specific technology.
The case was overseen by a panel of three judges namely Sabine Wimmers, Stephan Janich, and presiding judge Sabine Klepsch.