Havells India Ltd Vs Shanghai Cet Electric Co. Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 01.06.2022
CASE NO: CS(Comm) No. 438 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Havells India Ltd Vs Shanghai Cet Electric Co. Ltd.
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Navin Chawla

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Subject matter contempt petition was filed by the Plaintiff on the ground that in spite of order of this Hon'ble Court , the Defendant No. 3 and 4 have failed to remove all the infringing links bearing the impugned Trademark/Logo HAVELLS. Para 3

2. In answer to that, the Defendant No.2 and 3 alleged that the said links were not used for listing of the impugned Products. Para 3

3.The Plaintiff insisted that even invisible use of trademark does amount to be user of a trademark. Para 9

4. Defendants also alleged that though there was specific prayer for removal of meta tags, however , no order to this effect was passed by the Court. Para 10

5.The court observed that It is settled law that a party cannot be held guilty of having committed contempt of Court if the order is not clear or specific and a bona fide doubt can at least be attributed in the mind of the parties on the scope and ambit of the order. Para 13

6.In view of the above, court did not held the Defendant guilty of contempt of court. However the Court directed the Defendant No.3 and 4 to remove all the infringing meta tags. Para 17

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Voltas Limited Vs Ashok Kumar

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 20.06.2022
CASE NO: CS(Comm) No. 438 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Voltas Limited Vs Ashok Kumar
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Brief Note on the case: 1.Plaintiff filed subject matter suit on the basis of proprietary rights in Trademark VOLTAS.

2. The Defendants were using the impugned website containing the trademark VOLTAS of the plaintiff, i.e. www.myvoltascare.com

3.The Defendants also copied the entire look, feel, colour scheme, photographs of the Plaintiff‟s website.

4.In such situation, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass an ex-parte injunction against the Defendants from using the impugned Trademark VOLTAS and also the impugned domain name www.myvoltascare.com.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Bhanushali Studio Vs Telegram

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 16.06.2022
CASE NO: Commercial IPR Suit (L) No.18595 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Bhanushali Studio Vs Telegram
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: In the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Circuit Judges Mr. Justice R.I. Chagla

Brief Note on the case: 1.Plaintiff filed the subject matter suit with relief of inter-alia interim injunction for removal of infringing links having Plaintiff's subject matter film titled as Janhit Mein Jaari.

2.In this case, the Defendants were not known, however infringing activities were going on web links available on internet.

3. The Hon'ble recognized the concept of John doe order as mention in Notice of Motion 854/15 in Suit (L) 271/15 order dated 1.07.2016 titled as Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Gujarath Telelink Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and Notice of Motion (L) 3549/15 in Suit (L) 1326/15 order dated 17.12.2015 titled as Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Hathway Sonali Om Crystal Cable Pvt. Ltd. Anr. In both the matter, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature passed orders which are in the nature of John Doe order. Para 7-10.

4. Accordingly , in the present matter also John Doe order of Injunction was passed against the defendants.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

In Re Steve Elster TM No.87749230

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 22.02.2022
CASE NO:2020-2205
CASE TITLE: In Re Steve Elster TM No.87749230
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Circuit Judges Mr. Justice Dyk Taranto, Mr. Justice Chen

Brief Note on the case: 1.Application TRUMP TOO SMALL was rejected on the ground that it consists of name of a living person, president Donald Trump.

2.The Subject matter Appeal was filed against rejection of this Trademark Application.

3. The provision of the Lanham Act section 2(c), prohibits registration of a trademark that consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature
identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.

4.The reversed finding of court below after observing that section 2(c) has limited application to private individuals because it requires consent
only if: “(1) the person is so well known that the public would reasonably assume a connection between the person and the goods or services.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Mondo Foods Co. Ltd. Vs Les Industries Torremond Inc

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 20.06.2022
CASE NO: 2022 FC 926
CASE TITLE: Mondo Foods Co. Ltd. Vs Les Industries Torremond Inc
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Federal Court of Canada
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Circuit Judges Mr. Justice McHaffie

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Applicant sought enforcement of its Trademark MONDO against the Respondent's Trademark TORREMONDO.

2.The Hon'ble Court observed as under : In the present case, Torré Monde’s impugned TORREMONDO trademarks incorporate the word MONDO which comprises the whole of the trademark in the ’083 Registration and the ’799 Registration. Para 13,16

3. The Federal Court allowed the claim of the Applicant and restrained the Respondent from using the Trademark TORREMONDO by observing that TorréMonde’s use of the TORREMONDO trademarks infringes the exclusive rights of Mondo Foods to the MONDO trademark conferred by the ’083 and ’799 Registrations. Para 34.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Golden Eye Media Vs Evo Lifestyle Products Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 22.06.2022
CASE NO: 2021-2096
CASE TITLE: Golden Eye Media Vs Evo Lifestyle Products Ltd.
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Circuit Judges Lourie, Schall, Reyna

Brief Note on the case: 1.This Appeal has been filed whereby Patent was of the Appellant was held to be invalid on the ground of functionality and obviousness.

2.The Federal Court observed that in determining whether a design is dictated by function, courts consider whether

The protected design represents the best design,”

Alternative designs would adversely affect the utility of the specified article,”

There are any concomitant utility patents,”

The advertising touts particular features of the design as having specific utility,” and

There are any elements in the design or an overall appearance clearly not dictated by function.” Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1322: Page 5

3.The Court further observed that Obviousness is a question of law that is reviewed denovo, based on underlying factual questions that are reviewed
for clear error.

The underlying factual inquiries include: the scope and content of the prior art;

The level of ordinary skill in the art;

The differences between the claimed invention and the prior
art; and

objective evidence of non-obviousness.

7.After observing the afore mentioned Test, the Federal Court dismissed the Appeal on the ground that order passed by the Trial Court Judge is correct.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Saint-Analytix Business Solutions I Pvt Ltd Vs Nihir Shah

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 08.06.2022
CASE NO: Appeal from Order No. 113 of 2021
CASE TITLE: Saint-Analytix Business Solutions I Pvt Ltd Vs Nihir Shah
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Ashutosh J.Shastri

Brief Note on the case: 1.Respondent No.1 was ex-employee of the Appellant.

2. The Appellant filed suit against the Respondents restraining him fro not to disclose confidential information of the Appellant.

3.Injunction was declined by the Trial Court against which Appeal was filed.

4.In Appeal the Respondent No.1 undertook not to use the confidential information till next date. .

5.The Respondent Kept on using the confidential information in spite of undertaking, hence contempt application was filed by the Appellant.

6.The Respondent No.1 filed application for cross examination in contempt petition.

7.The Court refused to passed any order on application seeking to cross examination in a contempt petition as rights and contentions of the parties are yet to be adjudicated. Para 25,26,27

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Saint-Gobain Glass France Vs Harsha Exito Engineering (P) Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 22.06.2022
CASE NO: Civil Suit(Comm.Div) No.409 of 2019
CASE TITLE: Saint-Gobain Glass France Vs Harsha Exito Engineering (P) Ltd.
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Judicature at Madras
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Brief Note on the case: 1. Suit for infringement of Patent under No.305596 in relation to the system and method of installing glass panel was filed against the Defendant . Para 2

2. The patent application was filed on 25.03.2015 and the Suit Patent was granted on 11.01.2019. The patent application was the subject matter of a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Act and it is pertinent to note that the Suit Patent passed the twin tests of examination and pre-grant opposition. Ultimately, the Suit Patent was granted on 11.01.2019.Hencde Plaintiff was observed to be owner of Subject matter Patent. Para 7

3.The Court also observed that a suit for infringement shall not be filed until the patent is granted and, secondly, such suit shall not be filed in respect of acts of infringement committed before the date of publication of the application. Para 8

4.The Defendant stated that: TRIL awarded the contract on
07.02.2017, the clamps were procured on 05.04.2017 and the work of
installation of the glass panels was carried out between 20.04.2017 and
20.06.2017. All these activities are subsequent to the publication date.
Hence, the second condition is duly satisfied and, therefore, the action for
infringement is maintainable. Para 8.

5.The Plaintiff adduced evidence of infringement of its claims by the
Defendant. The Defendant did not lead any evidence to the contrary. Hence Defendant was held to be guilty of infringement of Patent Para 10,11

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Neha Overseas Vs Khushi Impex

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 20.06.2022
CASE NO: COM IP SUIT NO.47 OF 2020
CASE TITLE: Neha Overseas Vs Khushi Impex
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Judicature at Mumbai
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: R.I.Chagla

Brief Note on the case: 1. Application has been filed by the Defendant seeking release of seized goods and seeking vacation of ex parte stay of injunction order dated 27.08.2020. Para 2

2.At the earlier occasion , the Defendant alleged that as cancellation petition has been filed before the Trademark registry in the year 04.03.2020, the suit proceeding is liable to be stayed under Section 124 of Trademarks Act 1999 and accordingly the suit was stayed vide order dated 06.07.2021. Para 3

3.The Plaintiff opposed that ex-parte order was passed on 27.08.2020. While present application seeking vacation of stay was filed in the year 2022, after lapse of almost 2 years. There is delay in filing present application seeking vacation of ex-parte injunction. Para 5.

4.The Hon'ble Court agreed that there was considerable delay in filing the present application, seeking vacation of ex-parte injunction order. Para 7

5.Merely pendency of cancellation petition before the Registrar of Trademark, is not a ground for seeking vacation of stay. Para 11.

6.The Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of infringement and passing off. Para 12

7.The court rejected the application of the Defendant seeking vacation of ex-parte stay and releasing of seized goods after observing dishonesty on the part of Defendant in adoption of the impugned Trademark and also there was delay of 2 years in filing the application after passing of ex-parte stay. Para 9,13.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Jason Swist and Crude Solutions Vs MEG Energy Corp

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 20.06.2022
CASE NO: A-35-21: [2022 FCA 118]
CASE TITLE: Jason Swist and Crude Solutions Vs MEG Energy Corp
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble Federal Court of Canada
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Justices Laskin J.A. , Mactavish J.A. and Monaghan J.A..

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Appellant filed Canadian Patent No. 2,800,746, titled “Pressure Assisted Oil Recovery” (the 746 patent), describes a method of extracting heavy oil from underground reservoirs . Para 1

2. This Appeal was filed as claim for infringement was denied and counter claim of was allowed by the Trial Court on the ground of anticipation. Para 2

3. Claim construction must be the same for the purpose of validity and for the purpose of infringement. Para 13

4.For the requirement of disclosure to be satisfied, it is not necessary that “the exact invention” have been made and publicly disclosed; rather, “the requirement of prior disclosure means that the prior patent must disclose subject matter. Para 52.

5.The concept of “special advantage” has been associated with selection patents. A selection patent is a patent (most commonly a pharmaceutical patent) “devoted to a selection of a particular compound, or compounds, from a larger grouping of compounds previously disclosed in general terms and claimed in a pre-existing genus patent. Para 70

6.Having said that, the Hon'ble Division Bench rejected the Appeal as there was no any perversity in the Judgement assailed.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Texzone Information Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vision Communications & Another

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 02.06.2022
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 402 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Texzone Information Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vision Communications & Another
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M Singh

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Plaintiff started organizing a trade show in the year 2011 under the name ‘HGH INDIA. Para 13

2. in May, 2022, the Plaintiff learnt that a similar trade show was being organized by the Defendant No.1 under the name ‘IHF’. Para 14

3. Accordingly the subject matter suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction, restraining passing off, infringement of copyright, unfair competition etc. Para 13

4.The Defendant copied contents of Terms and Conditions of Plaintiff's website and its brochure. Para 17.

5.Defendant was directed to take down the infringing contents from their web site. Para 18

6.It is one of those unique case where relief pertaining to contents of web site was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Metis Learning Solutions Private Limited Vs Flipkart India

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 01.06.2022
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 393 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Metis Learning Solutions Private Limited Vs Flipkart India Private Limited and Ors
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Justice Mr. Jyoti Singh

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Plaintiff creative interactive tools to aid early learning for Children under the Trademark EINSTEIN BOX.

2. EINSTEIN BOX was launched by the Plaintiff since the year 2016. Para 20,22.

3.Plaintiff obtained registration for the trademark “EINSTEIN BOX” in Class 28 in 2019, claiming user since 2016 Para 25.

4.Defendant No. 1 approached the Plaintiff in the beginning of April
2021, with a proposal to directly purchase the Einstein Box products from
the Plaintiff to provide them to its customers on more favourable terms via
Flipkart.com in order to expand Defendant No. 1’s market share over other
online e-commerce platforms. Para 26

5.Defendant was selling the impugned product under the name NEWTON BOX with identical colour combination. Accordingly ex-parte injunction was granted. Para 32,41

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539