ANI Media Sues OpenAI in Delhi High Court for Copyright Violation
Adding to the growing number of news organisations taking legal action against OpenAI, the Indian news agency, Asian News International Media Pvt Ltd (ANI), sued the AI company in the Delhi High Court for unauthorised use of copyright-protected material. ANI alleged that OpenAI used and stored the former’s copyrighted content without obtaining permission to train ChatGPT. The suit further claims that OpenAI falsely attributed fake news stories to ANI. In response, OpenAI claimed that it operates on an ”opt-out policy” under which it blocks websites to prevent access for training purposes and has accordingly blocked ANI’s content. The hearing for the case has been set for 28 January 2025.
WIPO Adopts New Design Law Treaty
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Member States came together at a diplomatic conference in Riyadh to welcome a new Treaty – the Riyadh Design Law Treaty. This Treaty aims to simplify design protection for designers, especially small-scale designers, and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Some of the envisaged benefits include e-filing systems for designs, electronic exchange of priority documents, options for the designers to choose various representations of the designs and add several designs to a single application under specific conditions, and flexibility for designers to avoid losing their rights in case of missed deadlines. The Treaty is set to come into effect once 15 contracting parties have ratified it.
(More details about the Treaty can be found in WIPO’s press release here.)
Samsung Ordered to Pay $118 Million to Netlist as Damages in Patent Infringement Suit
In 2022, computer memory manufacturing company Netlist sued Samsung, alleging that Samsung’s memory modules, used in cloud computing servers and other data-intensive technologies, infringed upon three of Netlist’s patents necessary to improve data processing. Samsung countered by asserting that the patents in question are invalid. However, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled in favour of Netlist, finding that Samsung willingly infringed upon Netlist’s patents. The Court ordered Samsung to pay Netlist $118 million in damages. This victory follows Netlist’s previous $303 million win against Samsung last year in a related matter and a $445 million win against Micron in a separate lawsuit involving the same patents.
ImagineAR Announces Filing Patent Infringement Suit Against Niantic Inc.
Augmented reality (AR) platform ImagineAR announced in a press release that it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Niantic Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The suit claims that Niantic, the company behind popular games such as Pokemon Go mobile game, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite and Monster Hunter Now, infringes upon ImagineAR’s AR technology patents. ImagineAR claims that Niantic's continued sale of software products and services incorporating the patented technology constitutes willful and deliberate infringement. The company has requested a jury trial in its complaint.
Trademark for a Country? Sweden Attempts to Avail Trademark Protection for its Name
In a first for any country in the world, Sweden, the Scandinavian nation is filing a trademark application with the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to protect its name. As part of its ’Visit the Original Sweden’ campaign, the country is trying to distinguish itself from 7 other places that are also named Sweden. It has also issued helpful guidance on identifying the original from the dupes. This initiative aims to help tourists arrive at their destination instead of booking tickets for a “dupe” destination.
Tesla versus Tesla-Tesla Inc. Locks Horns with its Namesake Company in Delhi High Court
Electric vehicle giant Tesla Inc. (Tesla) is engaged in a battle with Indian battery-making company Tesla Power India Pvt. Ltd. (TPI) over the use of the “Tesla” brand name. Aggravated by TPI’s use of the names “Tesla Power” and “Tesla Power USA” to sell its products, Tesla sent a cease-and-desist letter. Despite this, TPI allegedly continued to use the brand name, prompting Tesla to file a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Delhi High Court in 2023. TPI argued that its business activities primarily focused on batteries for automobiles, inverters, and UPS systems, and it is not associated with electric vehicle production or marketing. Although the company had a marketing tie-up with an EV manufacturer named e-Ashwa, they had subsequently refrained from using the “Tesla” logo on the vehicles. The Delhi High Court has deferred the hearing to April 2025 as the parties are currently negotiating an out-of-court settlement.
YouTube Shorts versus Shorts: Google Defends its Use of YouTube Shorts in UK Court
UK-based short film distribution company, Shorts International Limited (SIL), sued Google for trademark infringement over Google’s use of “YouTube Shorts” and “Shorts”. SIL asserted that Google’s use of these trademarks infringed upon SIL’s own trademarks “Shorts” and “ShortsTV”. Google countered by arguing that SIL’s trademarks were invalid as they merely described the goods and services being provided (short films) and some of them have not been actually used. The case was initially issued in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in June 2022 and was subsequently transferred to the IP List of the High Court in 2023. The judgement handed down by the UK High Court ruled that Google’s use of its trademarks did not create a likelihood of confusion, and did not significantly affect the distinctive nature of SIL’s trademarks. Additionally, the Court found that SIL’s use of its trademarks has not been extensive enough to enhance their distinctiveness.
Delhi High Court Directs Auction of “Fortis” Trademark
In 2016, an arbitral tribunal in Singapore awarded Japanese pharmaceutical company Daiichi Sankyo (Daiichi) INR 3,500 crores against Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Ranbaxy). The tribunal found that Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, former promoters of Fortis Healthcare, had concealed and misrepresented critical information regarding ongoing US Food and Drug Administration and Department of Justice investigations. Daiichi recently filed a petition with the Delhi High Court to initiate the sale of the “Fortis” trademark to seek execution of the arbitral award. While the Court did not undertake a formal valuation of the trademark, it noted that the trademark’s auction could raise INR 191.5 crores. The court denied Daiichi's request for a formal valuation, citing potential delays in realizing the outstanding amount. However, the judgment debtors (the parties ordered to pay the money) have the option to conduct their own valuation.