We are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
We started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
We and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
There are two discernible facets when a celebrity wants to protect their personality rights: first, the right to protect one’s image from being commercially exploited without permission by treating it as a tort of passing off; mainly termed as publicity rights which comes under the ambit of IP Law and second, the right to privacy which entails one’s right to be left alone. The first article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses protection under IP laws. Discussing jurisprudential development in US and UK, the article elaborately summarises many case law governing jurisprudence in India. According to the authors, in the era of digital media and widespread information dissemination, the interplay between publicity and privacy rights remains a dynamic and complex area of law. They observe that balancing the interests of public figures in controlling their image with their right to personal privacy continues to be a challenge.
Trademark tangle: Deepika Padukone’s beauty brand dances through the tunes of ‘use in a trademark sense’ v. ‘descriptive use’
By Vindhya S. Mani, Radhika Deekshay and Shivangi Rajan
A recent order passed by the Delhi High Court in favour of DPKA Universal Consumer Venture, rejecting the plea of interim injunction by Lotus Herbals against the former’s use of ‘Lotus Splash’, has garnered a lot of attention. The decision discusses the question of infringement, with specific reference to Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The second article in this newsletter discusses this interim order and analyses the jurisprudence on Section 30(2)(a). The authors opine that said section should most definitely be interpreted in such a manner to prevent the undesirable consequence of trademark owners using their IP rights to justify anticompetitive and exploitative behavior.
Ratio decidendi
Copyrights - Suit against groundless threat of legal proceedings becomes infructuous once ‘action’ for copyright infringement is initiated - FIR can constitute an ‘action’ under proviso to Section 60 - Bombay High Court
Trademarks - Use of trademark as option in drop down menu provided to seller at time of registration on e-commerce site constitutes ‘use’ - E-commerce site liable in absence of any verification process - Delhi High Court
Trademarks - Time period for filing evidence in support of opposition is mandatory - No discretion with Registrar to extend same - Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Territorial jurisdiction of Court - Decision under CPC Order VII Rule 10 to disregard pleadings stated in defence
Trademarks - Jurisdiction of High Court to consider rectification/cancellation under Section 57 - Issue referred to Larger Bench of HC
Compensatory cost is not dependent on quantum of damages claimed
