INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY
RIGHTS
CASES

Compiled By-
Vatsala Tewari
MFM-III
NIFT, Rae Bareli
 by Vatsala Tewari
Adidas America Inc. v. Payless
Shoesource Inc.

by Vatsala Tewari
 Adidas
In 1994, Adidas and Payless got into a scuffle
over stripes. Adidas had used its three-stripe

America Inc.
mark as a logo of sorts since 1952, and had
recently registered it as a trademark. But
Payless was selling confusingly similar

vs. Payless athletic shoes with two and four parallel

stripes.

Shoesource The two companies hashed out a settlement,

but by 2001, Payless was again selling the

Inc. look-alikes. Fearing that the sneakers would

dupe buyers and tarnish its name, Adidas
America Inc. demanded a jury trial.
The trial lasted seven years, during which
268 pairs of Payless shoes were reviewed. In
the end, Adidas was awarded $305 million
$100 million for each stripe, as theWall
Street Journals Law Blog calculated.

by Vatsala Tewari
 Tattoo Artist vs. Warner Bros.

by Vatsala Tewari
 In the recent movie The Hangover Part II, Stu

Tattoo
Prices tattoo is identical to the one Mike Tyson
has, and it alludes to the boxers cameo in the
original 2009 movie The Hangover.

Artist vs. Tysons tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill filed a

lawsuit against Warner Bros. Entertainment on

Warner April 28, just weeks before the movies May 26

opening. Since he obtained a copyright for the

Bros.
eight-year-old artwork on 3-D on April 19, he
claimed that the use of his design in the movie
and in advertisements without his consent was
copyright infringement. Warner Bros., of
course, saw it as a parody falling under fair
use.
It didnt affect movies release, but Whitmills
case stuck. Warner Bros. suggested, that it
would be willing to digitally alter the film to
substitute a different tattoo on Helmss face.

by Vatsala Tewari
 Viva La Vida vs. If I could fly
(MUSIC)

by Vatsala Tewari
 Viva La
Guitarist Joe Satriani claimed the band copied his
instrumental If I Could Fly for their own track Viva La

Vida vs. If I
Vida, but an out-of-court-settlement seemed to have
been reached as the lawsuit was dismissed by judge.

could fly
He sued them in December, demanding damages
and "any profits attributable to the alleged copyright
infringement".
(MUSIC) "With the greatest possible respect to Joe Satriani,"
Coldplay replied in a statement, "if there are any
similarities between our two pieces of music, they
are entirely coincidental, and just as surprising to us
as to him.
In the filing posted 14 September, judge Pregerson
dismissed the case and ruled that each party would
"bear [their] own cost" for the litigation. The
stipulation, er, "upon stipulation" suggests that the
parties came to an out-of-court settlement most
by Vatsala Tewari
likely thatColdplaypaid Satriani off.
 Da Vinci Code vs. The Holy Blood
And The Holy Grail

by Vatsala Tewari
 Da Vinci
A high court judge today rejected claims that Dan
Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code
breached the copyright of an earlier book.

Code vs. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh

publishers Random House claiming that
had sued
Mr Brown's

The Holy
book "appropriated the architecture" of their book,
The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail, which was
published in 1982 by the same publishing house.

Blood And The claimants said Mr. Brown, whose book has made
him the highest-paid author in history - had

The Holy
"hijacked" and "exploited" their book, which took
them five years to create. But in his ruling this
afternoon at the high court in London following a

Grail three-week trial, Mr. Justice Peter Smith said the

claim for copyright infringement had "failed and is
dismissed".
The claimants were ordered to pay 85% of Random
House's legal costs, which are estimated at nearly
1.3m, with an interim payment of 350,000 to be
made by May 5 2006.

by Vatsala Tewari
 Louis Vuitton vs.
Haute Diggity Dog

by Vatsala Tewari
 Louis
In 2007, the high-end signature hand-bag
and luggage maker, Louis Vuitton Malletier,

Vuitton vs.
lost an outrageous copyright infringement
case against Haute Diggity Dog, a fashion
company known for its range of humorous

Haute products.
The comedy designers had released a line of
Diggity Dog 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 design or trademark infringement.

by Vatsala Tewari
 Mattel Inc. vs. MGA
Entertainment

by Vatsala Tewari
 Mattel Inc. and Mga Entertainment were

Mattel Inc. vs.

feuding over who owned the popular Bratz-
like dolls (My Scene-Barbie). Mattel claimed,

MGA
Carter Bryant worked for Mattel Inc. but then
pitched an Idea for Bratz dolls for Mga
Entertainment.
Entertainment On july 17, 2008, the U.S. District court ruled
against MGA Entertainment, and were asked
to pay Mattel $100mn. However, they came
to the conclusion that it would be unfair to
revoke Mga's ownership rights to Bratz
because of the amount of effort and
investment in Bratz dolls, so later asked to
continue the kidz & lil angelz collection just
not under BRATZ name.

by Vatsala Tewari
 Merck vs. Glenmark over
Sitagliptin

by Vatsala Tewari
 Merck vs.
In an interesting note, Honble Supreme
Court of India on Special Leave Petition filed

Glenmark
by Glenmark stayed the Delhi High Court
order which passed injunction against
Glenmark for the generic drug Sitagliptin till

over 28th April 2015. Merck Sharp & Dohme filed

an application for an ad interim injunction

Sitagliptin restraining the respondent/defendant

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals from using its
patented product Sitagliptin (Indian Patent
No. 209816) at the Supreme Court. The
Delhi high court conclusively held that all the
three ingredients (Prima facie, Irreparable
injury and balance of convenience) for
passing the order of injunction were
established by MSD and hence injuncted
Glenmark from manufacturing and selling of
Zita and Zitamet.
by Vatsala Tewari
 Black Tuxedo Dress
(YSL vs. Ralph Lauren)

by Vatsala Tewari
 Black
Yves Saint Laurent had sued Ralph Lauren,
accusing the company of copying a black

Tuxedo
tuxedo dress that Mr. Saint Laurent first
created in 1966 and showed again during
the haute couture fall collections for 1991-

Dress (YSL 92.

It's one thing to draw inspiration from
vs. Ralph another designer; it's quite another to rip off
a design, line for line, cut for cut, which is

Lauren) what Ralph Lauren did.

In a French court ruling that may give
fashion the same sort of copyright
protection offered to software and art in
America, Yves Saint Laurent won a total of
$395,090 from Ralph Lauren (1994), for
"counterfeiting and disloyal competition.

by Vatsala Tewari