Philips Lighting Holding Vs Jai Prakash Agarwal

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.07.2022
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 46/2019
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Navin Chawla
CASE TITLE: Philips Lighting Holding Vs Jai Prakash Agarwal

1.The Plaintiff filed subject matter suit on the basis of proprietary rights in the design „T-Shaped LED Bulb‟ registered under the design
registration no. 299147 on 06.11.2017 with a reciprocity date of
08.05.2017 in Class 26-04. Para 4.

2.The observed the designs of the T-Bulb of the plaintiff and those of the defendants to be similar, if not identical. Para 19.1, 19.2

3.The court also reiterated this well settled proposition of law that tor a defense of functionality to succeed, it is not enough to say that the form has some relevance to the function. If a particular function can be achieved through a number of different forms, then a defense of functionality must fail. Following this principle of law, the Hon'ble High Court rejected the argument of the Defendant that Plaintiff's design is functional. Para 21

4.A slight trivial or infinitesimal variation from the pre-existing design shall disqualify the relevant design for registration. The change introduced should be substantial. Para 22.4

5.The Hon'ble Court refused the injunction after observing the Plaintiff's design to be trade variant. Para 22.5

6.It is unique case in the sense that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in spite of observing that Defendant's design is similar to design of the plaintiff and in spite of rejecting the argument of defendant that design of the Plaintiff was functional, was pleased to decline the injunction in favour of the Plaintiff on the ground that the same is not original and that it is prior published and merely a trade variant.

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

Bright Life care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07.07.2022
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 144/2022
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Prathiba M Singh
CASE TITLE: Bright Life care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

When a right holder makes its campaign popular, then any other party may try to take advantage of advertisement campaign. Advertisement campaigns play important role in expansion of business. Creation of unique advertisement campaigns requires lots of hard work and effort. Naturally monetary efforts are also involved in creation and propagation of advertisement campaign.

There may be various modes of advertisement campaigns. Audio, video or print media can be used for spread of an advertisement campaign. This articles deals with the situation when advertisement campaign is represented and propagated through video mode.

The issue involved herein is that how such advertisement campaigns , which are propagated through video mode, can be protected by the owner? What kind of intellectual property rights are there in an advertisement campaign? When an advertisement campaign is propagated through video mode, it may comprised of various elements. How intellectual property can be asserted by a right holder in such a situation?

One of such case came up before Justice Prathiba M Singh , High Court of Delhi in Suit bearing CS (Comm) 144/2022 titled as Bright Life care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., where in the Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of its intellectual property right in its advertisement campaign JIDDI HUN MAIN which was projected in video form. The Plaintiff sought relief of injunction against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants are also using similar advertising campaign, where in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its Judgement dated 07.07.2022 , was pleased to grant relief in favour of the Plaintiff against the violating content of the Defendants.

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

Nippon A & L Inc Vs The Controller of Patents

This Appeal was decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its Judgement dated 05.07.2022 passed in C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 11/2022 titled as Nippon A & L Inc Vs The Controller of Patents. This Appeal has been preferred against the Order of controller of Patent, to the effect of rejecting the Patent Application of the Appellant. Para 2.

2.The facts before Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M Singh, High Court of Delhi was that the Appellant filed patent application in Japan bearing no. 2013153727 seeking patent protection for a “copolymer latex” product and process on 24th July, 2013 and corresponding to said International filing, the Appellant filed application bearing no. 201617003704 dated 2nd February, 2016 in India. Para 3.

3.A request for examination of Appellant’s application was filed on 15th March, 2017 and subsequently First Examination Report was issued on 22.11.2019. Para 3.

4. Initially the Patent was filed as product by process. When first examination was issued and the Appellant filed reply thereto dated 18.05.2020, during the the course of oral hearing , the Appellant proposed to amend the claims as process only. Subsequent thereto amended sets of claims were also filed along with written submission on 24.01.2021. Para 5.

5.The Appellant claimed that amended claims were filed in order to make the claims more clear and in order to bring definiteness in it. However the controller of Patent rejected the amended claims of the Appellant basically on the grounds that these amended claims were beyond the scope of original claims and that the same also lack inventive steps. In such a situation, the present Appeal was filed. Para 6.

6.The crux of the argument before the Hon'ble Court was that whether a Patent Application, which was filed as process by patent, can by virtue of amendments, the claims be allowed as process only, even if the subject matter claims in the nature of product only? Para 12

7.The court observed that initially the specification gives the characteristic features of the copolymer latex and the brief manner in which the process is to be carried out , hence it was product by process. The Controller of Patent issued the first examination report, where by it sought explanation from the Appellant, whether the subject matter Patent Application relate to a product patent or a process patent? In view of objections raised by the controller of Patent , the Appellant agreed to amend the claims of the Patent to process Patent only? Para 24, 27, 30.

8.The main ground of the controller in rejecting the amended claims of the Appellant was that in the original claims, process were not claimed. Hence the amended claims were beyond the scope of claims as it included the process. Para 34

9.The court observed that the specification of the subject matter Patent was detailed in which the process of emulsion polymerisation’ has been explained in the minutest form. Subsequently the unique features in the product was claimed which was resultant of the process shown in the specification. In view of objection raised by the controller, the Appellant amended the claims to change it to claims in the process. It was rejected by the controller on the ground that originally no claims were made in the process. Hence subsequently, the appellant could not have changed the claims from product to process. Para 35,36

10.The court made out distinction between a product claim and process claim. Product claim is much wider that process claim. If product claim is granted, it grants exclusive right over the product irrespective of what process adopted by the Patentee in order to achieve the product. However in a process Patent extremely limited right is granted to the Patentee only limited to the extent of process claimed in the Patent. If same product is achieved through different process , then Patentee can not extend its rights to this product. Para 37.

11. The Hon'ble Referred section 59 (1) of the Patent Act 1970, which says that disclaimer of claims are allowed. In the present case, the amendments of claims as sought for by way of disclaimer only. In amended claims , products claims were disclaimed. Para 42,44

12.The Hon'ble Court further relied upon Ayyangar Committee Report and observed that intention of this Report was to give broader and wider permissibility for amendment of claims and specification prior to the grant and restrict the same post the grant and advertisement thereof. Para 54

13. The court observed that in the subject matter case the Appellant was amending and narrowing the scope of the claims and not expanding the same. The process sought to be claimed in the amended claims has been clearly disclosed in the patent specification. Hence the controller's observation that amended claims were beyond the scope , was not held to be tenable in the eyes of law. Para 58.

14.As the Controller has passed the order only to extent of amendments in claims, it was set aside to that extent. However the matter was remanded back to the controller to decide the fate the Patent application with respect to other legal embargo , i.e. novelty, lack of inventive steps etc. Para 59,60

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

Ircon International Ltd. Vs Reacon Engineers Pvt. Ltd

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 04.07.2022
CASE NO: OMP (Comm) 488 of 2019
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Vibhu Bakhru
CASE TITLE: Ircon International Ltd. Vs Reacon Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Petition which was originally filed , was containing only 72 pages . Para 13

2.The Original Petition was accompanied with statement of truth , which is mandatory. Para 13

3.Subsequebtly filed petition comprised of 1325 pages. Hence entire framework of the petition was changed. Para 14

4.The initial petition was not accompanied with valid Vakalatnama. Hence the original filing could not be termed as valid filing. Para 15

5.Hence the delay in filing the Petition was not condoned. Para 15

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

El Baik Food System Vs Arsalan Wahid Gilkar

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.07.2022
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 283 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Prathiba M Singh
CASE TITLE: El Baik Food System Vs Arsalan Wahid Gilkar

Brief Note on the case: 1.After passing of interim injunction order, defendants got registered similar domain name. Para 4

2.Godaddy.com is direct the impugned violating domain names within 3 days. Para 10

3.Defendants were also using HAT device of plaintiff. Para 11

4.Local commissioner was appointed to visit the premise of defendant and impugned bill board etc shall be removed from the defendants premises. Para 11

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

Bijoy Vs Gopinath and Ors

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 17.06.2022
CASE NO: OP(C) No.1600 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Kerala at Ernaculum
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree C.S.Dias
CASE TITLE: Bijoy Vs Gopinath and Ors

Brief Note on the case: There is no legal stipulation under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC that counter claim should be headed by a cause title. Para 11

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

Anugya Gupta Vs Ajay Kumar

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.07.2022
CASE NO: CS(Comm) No. 422 of 2020
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Navin Chawla
CASE TITLE: Anugya Gupta Vs Ajay Kumar

Brief Note on the case: 1.Plaintiff adopted trademark SARKARIRESULT on 01.01.2012. Para 2.

2. Defendant adopted SARKARIRESULT.INFO. Para 9.

3.Defendant also applied for SARKARIREULT before Registrar of Trademark. Para 9.

4.Defendants trademark was also registered. Para 9.

5.Defendant alleged to have adopted the impugned Trademark in 2015. Para 15

6.Plaintiff has already put on record its domain name SARKARIRESULT.COM registered on 01.01.2012. Para 24.

7. Registration does not prove its user. Para 32

8.The Defendant filed application as proposed to be used. Such declaration is final. Para 32

9.Plaintiff was granted relief as the defendant itself has applied for trademark registration, hence can not plead the same to be generic. Para 34

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

3M Company Vs Vikas Sinha and another

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.07.2022
CASE NO: CS(OS) No. 144 of 2019
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Navin Chawla
CASE TITLE: 3M Company Vs Vikas Sinha and another

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Defendants filed the written statement after delay of 118 days after service of summons. Para 2.5.

2. The written statement, which was filed after delay of 118 days, was not accompanied with any application seeking condonation of delay. Para 5.6.

3.The reason given by the defendant that the same was trying to amicably settle the dispute does not amount to be plausible reason. Para 5.9.

4.In such situation, the application seeking condonation of delay was rightly rejected. Para 5.10.

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