Gopal Sabu and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and another

==============
Judgement Date:23.09.2022
Case No. MCRC No. 43601 of 2022
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench
Hon'ble Justice Shree Rajendra Kumar Verma
Gopal Sabu and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and another

The Petitioner filed the subject matter Petition seeking ad interim relief against the Respondents 1-3. The subject matter criminal complaint was filed against the Respondent No.1 to 3 being aggrieved of use of Trademark SACHAMOTI Poha.

The Respondents alleged suppression by the Petitioner. The Petitioner suppressed that there is dispute between the parties regarding “SACHAMOTI” trade mark and the dispute of civil status are pending before the High Court of Delhi and the Delhi High Court allowed the

petitioners and respondent no.3 to use the trade mark but it also directed them not to claim themselves to be the true owner of trade mark “SACHAMOTI.

The Hon'ble High Court of Madhy Pradesh refused to grant any interim relief to the Petitioner after placing reliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidy vs. Jagannath reported as AIR 1994 SC 853 at p. 855 has elucidated this doctrine thus:

“The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based upon falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.”

As in the given case, the Petitioner suppressed the factum of pendency prior civil dispute between the party. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh did not grant any relief to the Petitioner.

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

=============

Claim Construction in a Process Patent

==============
Judgement Date:19.09.2022
Case No. CS COMM 349 OF 2022
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Jyoti Singh, H.J.
FMC Corporation Vs Natco Pharma

The Subject matter Suit pertains to infringement of Plaintiff's patent under Indian Patent No. 298645 (IN 645). The subject matter Suit relates to claim construction of a process patent and applicability of Doctrine of Equivalence in this regard.

The Plaintiff filed the subject matter Suit basing it's right in IN 645 which was a process Patent. The allegation of the Plaintiff in this case was that the Defendant was infringing the process patent of the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant was, off course denying the infringement of the process Patent of the Plaintiff. This was the issue which was to be decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

Vide its Judgement dated 19.09.2022 passed in Suit bearing CS COMM 349 of 2022 , the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the matter titled as FMC Corporation and Ors Vs Natco Pharma Limited not with dealt with the issue of applicability of doctrine of equivalence in a process patent but also clarified this position as to what weightage has to be given to expert opinion of Scientific advisers appointed by the Court.

The subject matter Indian Patent No. 298645 (IN 645) was granted by the Controller of Patents, in favour of the Plaintiff on 06.12.2005. As per assertion of the Plaintiff, this Patent was a novel method for preparing "anthranilic diamide insecticide compounds" with a total of 12 claims.

This Patent was a process Patent for preparing "anthranilic diamide insecticide compounds" in which a carboxylic acid compound, an aniline compound and a sulfonyl chloride are combined together.

This case was filed against the Defendant alleging that the Defendant was also using similar method of activation of carboxylic acid moiety, in substantially the same way, i.e., coupling of carboxylic acid with aniline to achieve the same result, i.e., yield CTPR.

However the Defendant denied by asserting that in the Plaintiff's Patent, sulfonyl chloride is used as reagent for coupling carboxylic acid intermediate with aniline intermediate in a single step. While Defendant's process involves two separate and discrete stages , carboxylic acid intermediate is converted to an acid chloride using thionyl chloride in a first reactor and the bio-products so formed viz. SO2 and HCl gases are scrubbed in caustic soda solution to give NaCl and NaHSO3, which are useful in food and cosmetic industries; and acid chloride of step is reacted with amide intermediate in a second reactor to obtain CTPR. Thus allegation of infringement of Patent was denied by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff invoked the doctrine of equivalence to allege that even if the Defendant's process does not literally infringe the suit patent, it may be found to infringe on the bedrock of ‘equivalence. The Doctrine of Equivalents mandates that in the absence of literal infringement, a product may be found to infringe a patented product, if it is found to be its substantial equivalent.

While Defendant was asserting that element to element test has to be applied. The basic foundation of the Defendant argument was that the reagent used by the Plaintiff in the subject matter Patent i.e. sulfonyl chloride was an essential element in Plaintiffs’ process, on the contrary the Defendant uses thionyl chloride as the reagent.

Now the question was that , whether the Defendant can evade the doctrine of equivalence as alleged by the Plaintiff by relying upon this fact that the reagent used by the Plaintiff in their Patent was sulfonyl chloride and that the reagent used by the Defendant is thionyl chloride , which is different.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi summurized the applicabilty of Doctrine of Equivalence as advanced by the Plaintiff and Doctrine to element to element test, as argued by the Defendant by observing that the Doctrine of Equivalents must be applied to individual elements of the claim and an analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the enquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way and result of the claimed element or whether the substitute element plays a role substantially different from the claimed element.

In such a situation , the role of different reagent applied by the Plaintiff in their process became important. For this Scientific advisors were appointed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi , who given their finding to the effect that sulfonyl chloride is an essential element of the suit patent. Thionyl chloride used as a reagent in the Defendant process, differs from sulfonyl chloride in its physical and chemical properties.

As Scientific advisers gave their finding to the effect that the essential element used by the Plaintiff and the Defendant in their respective Patent and respective product , i.e. sulfonyl chloride and Thionyl chloride are different in their physical and chemical property, the natural consequence would be that allegation of infringement has to fail.

The Hon'ble observed that weightage of of Scientific advisers has to be given and that Courts are not experts and should not substitute their views or opinion for those of the experts or specialists in the field. Thus Court declined the injunction to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was unable to establish that the process used by the Defendant in their product was equivalent to the Suit Patent Process.

From the afore mentioned discussion it is apparent that in cases pertaining to Process Patent, the Plaintiff is required to establish that the process used by the Defendant in its product is equivalent to the process used in the Plaintiff's Process Patent.

Doctrine of Equivalent does not require the element to element comparison of Plaintiff's and Defendant's Process. What court is required to see whether the essential feature of Defendant's process and Plaintiff's process are same or different? In doing so , the trifling differences has to be ignored. Thus if the Defendant imitates the essential feature of the Plaintiff's Process Patent then the same falls within the trap of Doctrine of equivalence.

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

=============

Vasundhara Jewellers Vs Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani

==============

Judgement Date:21.09.2022

Case No. CS COMM 363 OF 2022

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

Navin Chawla,H.J.

Vasundhara Jewellers Vs Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani

Plaintiff Trademark: VASUNDHARA

Plaintiff's Product: Jewellery

Plaintiff is registered proprietor of VASUNDHARA Composite Label

Defendant's Trademark: VASUNDHARA FASHION

Defendant's Product:Textile product

Injunction refused on the following ground.

1. VASUNDHARA is common name.

2. Plaintiff does not have word per se registration. Its only have label registration. Hence by virtue of Section 17,it can canot assert individual right in the Trademark VASUNDHARA.

3. Goods of the Plaintiff and defendant are thought , cognate, still not identical.

4. Plaintiff is based in Delhi, while Defendant is based in Gujarat

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

ajayamitabh7@gmail.com, 9990389539

=============

Tata Sons Pvt.Ltd. Vs Hakunamata Tata

==============
Judgement  Date:19.09.2022
Case No. FAO OS COMM 62 OF 2022
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Mukta Gupta and Manoj Kumar Ohri , H.J
Tata Sons Pvt.Ltd. Vs Hakunamata Tata

The Appeal was filed against the Order where by the Hon'ble Single Judge casted his doubt on the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court  to entertain the suit.

Still suit was entertained by the Single Judge, still injunction was refused.

The Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the Appeal and granted the injunction by observing that web sites of the Defendant was interactive in nature. Hence the Court was having Jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.

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

=============

Laboratoire Griffon Vs Harrissa Healthcare

==============

Judgement Date:15.09.2022

Case No. Interim Application (L) No.25388 of 2022 in Commercial IP Suit No.25387 of 2022

Hon'ble High Court of Bombay

R.I.Chagla , H.J

Laboratoire Griffon Vs Harrissa Healthcare

Plaintiff's Trademark:GLIMET

Defendant's Trademark:ALMET

Ex parte injunction granted 

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

ajayamitabh7@gmail.com, 9990389539

=============

Sterlite Technologies Limited Vs HFCL Limited

==============
Judgement Date:14.09.2022
Case No. CS (COMM) 19/2022
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Prathiba M Singh , H.J
Sterlite Technologies Limited Vs HFCL Limited

What are the circumstances where a defendant could be allowed to use the principle of mosaicing to defeat a patent? Or in other words, how the Hon'ble Court would evaluate which of the prior arts cited by the Defendant are relevant for the purpose of mosaicing.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in its recent judgement dated 14.09.2022 passed in Suit bearing CS (COMM) 19 of 2022 titled as Sterlite Technologies Limited Vs HFCL Limited, considered this argument of the Plaintiff regarding mosaicing of prior art and put some light on this issue. 

The subject matter suit was filed seeking infringement of Patent No. IN335369, which was granted to the Plaintiff in relation to Optical Fiber Cables, which was granted to the Plaintiff on 20.03.2020 with a priority date of 29.03.2016. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff on the grounds inter alia that the optical fibre cables of the Defendant's are violating the subject matter patent and, accordingly, an ex parte injunction dated 12.01.2022 was obtained. 

Vidé In the judgement dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the afore mentioned suit, the application of the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and the application of the Defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was disposed off. 

As per the case of the plaintiff, the earlier optical fibre cables were of bigger diameter and required large ducts for installation. While the subject matter suit pertains to optical fibre cables, which have a smaller diameter and reduced weight, 

The main claim of the Suit Patent was that it had 16 optical fibers, whereas the Defendant's product only had 12 optical fibers. The defendant relied upon two basic prior arts. 

The Plaintiff sought to disregard these prior arts by raising the objection that these prior arts should be rejected as the defendant was trying to defeat the patent of the Plaintiff by mosaicing prior arts. 

However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi rejected this argument of the plaintiff by holding that mosaicing of prior art is applicable only in those cases where the defendant relies upon multiple prior arts which are totally unconnected to each other. As in the subject matter suit, the defendant relied upon only two prior arts and they are connected, hence it cannot be said that the defendant is trying to do the mosaicing of prior arts. 

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in this case, was pleased to discuss two of the prior arts in order to defeat the novelty of the subject matter patent. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi made a comparison between the basic features of the cited 2 prior arts with the subject matter patent and observed the basic similarity between all three are as under: 

Water swella tubes/sleeves are included in the suit patent. All three disclose the presence of jelly within the buffer tubes.

All three OFCs have ripcords and an outer sheath.

In the RJIL OFC cable, an aramid yarn is used for cross-binding of the buffer tubes along with a water-blocking tape.

The Gigacom uses a polyethylene lining and water-blocking yarn around the CSM;

 the suit patent OFC discloses a strengthening and a binding polyester, aramid or propylene layer and a water-blocking material. 

As per the observation of the Hon'ble Court, all the basic features of the suit patent were available in the 2 cited prior arts. Hence, the subject matter patent was liable to be defeated on the ground of lacking inventive step. 

Another reason for declining the injunction was that in the defendant's Optical Fiber Cables , only 12 fibre cables were used, while in the subject matter suit patent, 16 fibre cables were used. 

Though the Plaintiff sought to argue that the number of 16 fibre cables used is merely illustrative in nature and the defendant's product is covered under the Indian Patent, even if it uses only 12 optical fibres. This argument could not be appealed to the Hon'ble Court. 

The reason for rejecting this argument was that the Plaintiff itself had applied another patent application in which the number of optical fibres was not specified, while in the subject matter patent, the number of 16 optical fibres was specially mentioned.

Hence, it cannot be said that the number of optical fibres used in the subject matter patent, i.e. 16, was merely illustrative. Actually, it was one of the basic features and the defendant, by using 16 optical fibres, was out of scope of the subject matter patent. 

Thus, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, though rejected the interim injunction on the ground of lacking inventive step , also considered the 2 cited prior arts with respect to lacking novelty also. 

Prior art mosaicing is only applicable when multiple and completely unrelated prior arts are used to defeat the patent on the grounds of lack of inventive step. However, in this case, the defendant relied on only two prior arts that were linked, so it cannot be said that the defendant was attempting to mosaic prior arts. 

The result was that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the subject matter suit, considered two of the prior arts cited by the Defendant, which were similar and connected to some extent, for the purpose of lacking novelty. This is another aspect that the Hon'ble Court observed that these two cited prior arts may not be relevant for destroying the novelty but certainly for the purpose of lacking inventive step.

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

Mahesh Bhai Vs State of Gujarat

=============
Judgement  Date:14.09.2022
Case No. Criminal Misc Application No.8581 of 2022
Hon'ble High Court of Ahmedabad
Niral R Mehta , H.J
Mahesh Bhai  Vs State of Gujarat

Under the provisions of copyright Act 1957, criminal complaint can be filed in order to initiate criminal proceeding. The provision of Section 63 of the Copyright Act 1957 provides for the offence under the Copyright Act 1957.

Section 63 of the Copyright Act 1957 talks about infringement of copyright, but it does not define the infringement. While Section 64 of the Copyright Act of 1957 empowers police authorities to seize infringing goods.

Now the question arises as to whether a police authority can register an FIR against any person after invoking the provisions of Section 64 of the Copyright Act 1957. Or in other words, can it be said that Section 64 of the Copyright Act 1957 provides for criminal liability?

The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad , vide its Judgment dated 14.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc Application No.8581 of 2022 titled as Mahesh Bhai Vs State of Gujarat , was having an occasion to address this issue.

Now coming to the facts of the case, an FIR has been registered against the applicant at the behest of a criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.2.

The subject matter FIR was registered on the grounds of inter alia alleging violation of Section 64 of the Copyright Act 1957.

The applicant claimed to be the registered owner of the copyright. Hence, the mentioned FIR could not have been registered against the applicant.

In order to appreciate the argument of the applicant, let us see what Section 51 of the Copyright Act 1957 provides for.

"51.Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed:

(a) when any person, without a license granted by the owner of the Copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a license so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act".

From bare perusal of Section 51 of the Copyright Act 1957 it is apparent that if a person does have license from the Registrar of Copyright, then such act does not amount to be infringement of Copyright.

In the facts of the case, the High Court interpreted the copyright registration granted in favor of the Applicant, to be such license given by the Registrar of Copyright.

The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat observed that since the Applicant is registered proprietor of the copyright. Hence necessary ingredients of Section 51 of the Copyright Act 1957 has not been satisfied.

 

The Hon'ble further observed that there is no any question of registration of FIR by the Police authorities against the Applicant herein as Section 64 of the copyright Act 1957 provides the power to the police authorities only to investigate the matter. Let is see what Section 64 of the Copyright Act 1957 stipulates?

"64. Power of police to seize infringing copies

(1) Where a magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under section 63 in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work, it shall be lawful for any police officer, not below the rank of sub-inspector, to seize without any warrant from the magistrate, all copies of the work wherever found, which appear to him to be infringing copies of the work and all copies so seized shall, as soon as practicable, be produced before the magistrate."

Thus, it is apparent that Section 64 of the Copyright Act 1957 does not define an offence. It is only the enabling section which empowers the police authorities to seize the infringing products.

The Hon'ble Court rightly observed that under Section 64 of the Copyright Act, the police authorities can only seize the infringing goods. Section 64 of the Copyright Act does not provide for any offence. Hence, the police authorities wrongly registered the FIR against the applicant.

The conclusion would be like this: a police authority can not register an FIR against any person after invoking Section 64 of the Copyright Act 1957. It is only a provision that provides power to a police authority to investigate the matter and seize the infringing product. No criminal liability can be affixed on the basis of Section 64 of the Copyright Act 1957. Of course, aid under Section 51 and 63 would be required in order to fix criminal liability on any person.

This is so because neither Section 63 nor Section 64 of the Copyright Act 1957 provides for what constitutes an infringement. Without satisfying the necessary ingredients of Section 51 of the Copyright Act 1957, an FIR solely registered on the basis of Section 64 of the Copyright Act 1957, would not be maintainable.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

ajayamitabh7@gmail.com, 9990389539

=============

Zydus Wellness Vs Arihant Remedies

=============
Judgement  Date:14.09.2022
Case No. CS (Comm) 417 of 2022
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Navin Chawla, H.J
Zydus Wellness Vs Arihant Remedies

The goods of defendant's were purchased by the Plaintiff from fripkart and those products were delivered in Delhi. In view of this the Court rejected application of the Defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and held that court is having jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's Trademark:GLUCON D
Defendant's Trademark:GLUCOSE D

Injunction was granted.

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

=============

Carlsberg Breweries Vs Tensberg Breweries

=============

Judgement Date:16.09.2022

Case No. CS (Comm) 646 of 2022

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

Navin Chawla, H.J

Carlsberg Breweries Vs Tensberg Breweries

Plaintiff's Trademark:CARLSBERG

Defendant's Trademark: TENSBERG 

Injunction granted. 

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

ajayamitabh7@gmail.com, 9990389539

=============

Indiamart Intermesh Vs Mr.Sameer Samim

Judgement Date:13.09.2022

Case No. CS (Comm) 631 of 2022

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

Prathiba M Singh, H.J

Indiamart Intermesh Vs Mr.Sameer Samim 

Plaintiff's Domain Name: www.indiamart.com

Defendants domain name: www.India-mart.co

Injunction granted. 

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

ajayamitabh7@gmail.com, 9990389539

=============

Dabur India Vs Ashok Kumar

==============
Judgement Date:14.09.2022
Case No. CS (COMM) 135/2022
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Prathiba M Singh , H.J
Dabur India Vs Ashok Kumar

These are batch matters which addressed the issue of grant of domain names by domain name registrants. There has not been any regulation so far regarding regulating the procedure of grant of domain names by different DNRs. This is the reason why many parties keep on adopting many domain names which were similar to well known trade marks. By the afore mentioned Judgement dated 14.09.2022, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed all the DNRs to appoint grievance cell so that any body, including the right holder can participate in the process of grant of domain names by these Domain Names Registrants. This is few of those orders which plays important role in regulating the procedure of grant of domain names by the DNRs.

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

Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

==============
Judgement Date:12.09.2022
Case No. FAO(COMM) 78 of 2022
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan , H.J
Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

In a recent Judgement pronounced by Hon'ble Single Judge, of Delhi in Amrish Aggarwal Vs Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd.: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9966, general direction has been issued by the Hon'ble Court that while filing Suit for Trademark infringement, the Plaintiff is required to file Legal Proceeding Certificate.

From bare perusal of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Single Judge, High Court of Delhi, it is apparent that no penal consequences have been provided. What could be effect of Non filing of Legal Proceeding Certificate in a Suit for Infringement, was yet to be adjudicated.

The Hon'ble Division Bench , high court of Delhi was having an occasion to deal with inter-alia this issue in Judgement dated 12.09.2022 passed in Appeal bearing FAO(COMM) 78 of 2022, titled as Maan Pharmaceuticals Vs Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Coming to the facts of the case, this Appeal was filed by the Defendant against order order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-02), Saket Courts - South District, New Delhi whereby the application filed by the appellant (defendant) under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘the CPC’), was dismissed.

The Hon'ble Division Bench , after observing that the Respondent was having sales office at Neb Sarai, within the jurisdiction of Court. The the order of the Trial Court to effect of favoring the Jurisdiction of the Court was held to be correct.

The Respondent also pleaded that the Appellant have intention to come within territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court. The Appellant is all set to launch its product within jurisdiction. The Appellant sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that mere apprehension of sale of goods with the impugned trademark in the future, will not amount to cause of action.

However the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi rejected this argument by observing that in view of the settled law , there is no merit in the objection taken by the Appellant that an apprehension to sell the goods with impugned trademark in future will not confer a cause of action in favour of Respondent.

The factum of non mentioning of rectification petition filed by the Appellant was also held not to be material suppression as It is settled law that filing of a rectification petition does not take away the right of a registered proprietor to injunct the infringement of its trademark. The pendency of the rectification does not create any bar for grant of interim injunction. Hence this argument was also rejected.

Now comes to the question of non compliance of general direction issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge , Delhi High Court in Judgement reported as Amrish Aggarwal Vs Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd.: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9966. The appellant argued regard to non-filing of the Legal Proceedings Certificate in a Suit for infringement. The said plea has been taken on the strength of the decision passed by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Amrish Aggarwal Vs Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

In order to appreciate this argument of the Appellant, the relevant portion of said general direction issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge , Delhi High Court in Judgement reported as Amrish Aggarwal Vs Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd.: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9966 are reproduced as under:

"It is further directed that in trade mark infringement matters the following documents ought to be necessarily filed along with the plaint:

i. Legal Proceedings certificate (LPC) of the trade mark showing the mark, date of application, date of user claimed, conditions and disclaimers if any, assignments and licences granted, renewals etc.,

ii. If the LPC is not available, at the time of filing of the suit and urgent orders of injunction are being sought, a copy of the trade mark registration certificate, copy of the trade mark journal along with the latest status report from the website of the Trade Mark Registry. This should be accompanied by an averment in the pleadings that LPC is applied for. Specific averment ought to be made that there are no disclaimers imposed on the mark and the mark stands renewed. Any licences and assignments ought to be pleaded"

Said Judgement does not prescribe for penal consequences in case of non compliance of afore mentioned direction. The Hon'ble Division Bench, High Court of Delhi rejected by observing that though a Legal Proceedings Certificate is an important document, which should be placed before the court at the time of deciding preliminary applications, the same, however, will not take away the statutory right of a plaintiff to seek injunction, which it is otherwise entitled to.

The Hon'ble Division Bench reasoned that in Amrish Aggarwal Vs Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd.: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9966, the Hon'ble Single Judge had passed certain directions in order to deter frivolous litigations and for the purpose that the time of the courts is not wasted due to non-filing of relevant documents. It was felt that a Legal Proceedings Certificate is an important document, which should be placed before the Court at the time of deciding preliminary applications.

The Hon'ble Division Bench also observed that there is no such requirement in the statute that a suit for infringement will not be entertained, if not accompanied by a Legal Proceedings Certificate. Thus it is clear that in a Suit for infringement, though a Plaintiff is supposed to file Legal Proceeding Certificate of its Trade Mark, however non compliance does not necessarily take away the right of plaintiff to seek injunction.

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

Steel Bird Hi Tech India Vs Mr. Tazeen Farooqui

=============
Judgement Date:13.09.2022
Case No. CS (Comm) 277 of 2017
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Yogesh Khanna, H.J
Steel Bird Hi Tech India Vs Mr. Tazeen Farooqui

Plaintiff's Trademark: STEEL BIRD
Defendants Trademark: SEA BIRD
Plaintiff as well as Defendant were registered Proprietors of their respective trademark.
Where both the parties are registered proprietor, Plaintiff can still invoke relief of Passing off.
Injunction granted.

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

=============

Haryana Pesticide Manufacturers Association Vs Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Judgement Date:12.09.2022
Case No. W.P.(C)- IPD 15/2021
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Yogesh Khaan , H.J
Haryana Pesticide Manufacturers Association Vs Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

The amendment application filed by the Respondent No.1 seeking amendment of Patent was allowed without serving copy of the same to the Petitioner.

Though hearing in pre grant opposition proceeding was granted to the Petitioner where in amendment of claims from 1 to 27 to 1 to 25 claims were discussed.

After grant of the Patent it came to notice of the Petitioner that amended claims 1 to 19 were allowed.

Subsequently it came to notice that separate proceeding was conducted in reply to FER in reply to which, the Respondent No.2 filed amendment application seeking amendment of claims from 1 to 25 to 1 to 19.

It was done behind the back of the Petitioner/Opponent. Aggrieved with the same , the Petitioner/opponent filed the writ petitioner.

The Hon'ble Court observed that the amendments sought by the Respondent No.1/Applicant were trivial in nature or in any case by way of disclaimer.

However the Hon'ble Court refused to grant any relief to the Petitioner on the ground that post grant opposition has already been filed against the impugned Patent.

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

Mohd Ershad Sole Proprietor EK Agencies Vs The Registrar of Copyright

==============
Judgement Date:07.09.2022
Case No. C.O. (COMM.IPD-CR) 17/2021
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Prathiba M Singh , H.J
Mohd Ershad Sole Proprietor EK Agencies Vs The Registrar of Copyright

Petitioner's prior registered copyright: HIGHGRON ASLI KESRI CHAI since 2015.
Respondent obtained NOC Subsequently for identical copyright : ASLI KESRI CHAI under No. A-131509/2019.

The impugned registered copyright ASLI KESRI CHAI under No. A-131509/2019 was ordered to be cancelled.

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

=============