Who is Pratibha M Singh? 

• Justice Pratibha M. Singh completed her 5 year law course from University Law College, Bangalore. She was offered the ODASS scholarship by the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust to study LL.M at the University of Cambridge (U.K.).   

How was the Career Journey of Pratibha M Singh? 

• She enrolled with the Bar in 1991. 
• She was a leading Intellectual Property lawyer (IPR) before being elevated to the High Court. 
• As the Managing Partner of Singh and Singh, she advised clients and handled issues relating to commercial disputes, arbitration, media laws etc. 
• She was invited as an expert to present views to Parliamentary Committees considering amendments to the Patents Act in 2002, Copyright Amendment Act, 2012, Geographical Indications Act etc.  
• She was the member of IPR Think Tank which was entrusted with the momentous task of drafting India’s first ‘National IPR Policy’ which was released on May, 2015. 
• Her contribution to the development of the IP law was recognised by Managaing IP, a leading global publication that has rated her amongst the ‘50 Most Influential People in IP’ for two consecutive years 2021, 2022. 
• She is the first Indian Judge who was elected as an Honorary Fellow of Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge.  

What are the Notable Judgments of Pratibha M Singh? 

• Universal City Studios LLC And Ors v. Dotmovies. Baby And Ors (2023) 
  • The Court in this case evolved the concept of ‘dynamic + injunctions’. 
  • The Delhi High Court through Justice Pratibha M Singh held that: 
    • To keep pace with the dynamic nature of the infringement that is undertaken by hydra-headed websites, this Court has deemed it appropriate to issue this ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ to protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the authors and owners of copyrighted works, as there is an imminent possibility of works being uploaded on rogue websites or their newer versions immediately upon the films/shows/series etc. 
  • The Court held that in normal cases the Court first identifies the work, then determine copyright and thereafter grant injunction. However, owing to the rogue websites there is a need to pass injunctions that are also dynamic qua the plaintiff as well. 
  • Thus, the Court held that injunction qua future works can be granted.  
• Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr v. MS Dominick Pizza & Anr (2022) 
  • The plaintiff in this case was Dominos IP Holder LLC. They had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of trademark. 
  • The plaintiff in this case asked for protection of mark ‘Domino’s Pizza’ and the accompanying device mark, logo mark as also marks ‘Cheese Burst’ and ‘Pasta Italiano’. 
  • The defendant on the other hand was ‘M/S Dominick Pizza’, who had a total of three outlets. 
  • The Court in this case held that the competing marks are deceptive and imitative of each other. 
  • Further, the Court held that the reviews of consumers on Google Reviews also reaffirm that there is a lot of confusion and severe tarnishment of plaintiff’s mark. 
  • Accordingly, the Delhi High Court held that in the present facts there is a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and irreparable injury would be caused if no injunction is granted.     
• Hamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr v. Amazon India Limited & Anr. (2022)  
  • The suit in this case was filed by the plaintiff ‘ROOH AFZA’ who are engaged in the business of manufacturing various Ayurvedic medicines, oils syrups and non-alcoholic beverages. 
  • It is the case of the plaintiff that there are many products by the name “ROOH AFZA” being sold by way of e-commerce website amazon. 
  • The Court held that until and unless the consumer actually receives the product there is no way of knowing as to whether the product being sold is that of plaintiffs or not. 
  • This can have adverse effect on the consumers and hence the Court granted injunction in this case. 
• Anju Jain & Anr v. M/s WTC Noida Development Company Private LImited (2024)  
  • The Court held that the use of word ‘seat’ is not compulsory for the purposes of determining the Court which would have jurisdiction over the proceeding arising out of the arbitration agreement. 
  • The Court held that there would be no seat and venue dichotomy in cases where the jurisdiction is made subject to the arbitration agreement. 
  • In the absence of anything to the contrary the referred place would be seat of arbitration.