Saturday, September 17, 2022

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

Friday, September 16, 2022

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

Thursday, September 15, 2022

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

Wednesday, September 14, 2022

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

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

Hindware Limited Vs Sanjay Ceramic Works and Another

==============
Judgement Date:06.09.2022
Case No. RFA(OS)(COMM) 9/2019
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan , H.J
Hindware Limited Vs Sanjay Ceramic Works and Another

The Appellant/Plaintiff's Suit was decreed however no relief of damages was granted. The Appellant filed the Appeal seeking relief of damages on account of compensatory damages. However the same was declined by the Hon'ble Division Bench on the ground that there was no evidence for computing the damages in the aforesaid manner. The Appeal was dismissed.

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

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

Sunday, September 11, 2022

Warner Bros Vs www.Uatchfree.st & Ors

==============
Judgement Date:08.09.2022
Case No. CS (COMM) 402/2019
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Navin Chawla , H.J
Warner Bros Vs www.Uatchfree.st & Ors

The Subject matter Suit was decreed against Rogue websites under the Provisions of Order 13-A of the Commercial Court Act 2015 as the the Defendant Nos. 1, 14 to 21 were not appearing.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decreed the suit by observing that the Defendant Nos. 1, 14 to 21 have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim of copyright infringement and have further not chosen to contest the said claim.

The Hon'ble Court further observed that the present matter is mainly concerned with the enforcement of the injunction orders which are passed against the rogue websites.

The rogue websites do not have any defense to the claim of copyright infringement but use the anonymity offered by the internet to engage in illegal activities, such as copyright infringement in the present case.

Accordingly the Suit was summarily decreed in favour of the Plaintiff under the Provisions of Order 13-A of the Commercial Court Act 2015.

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

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

Blog Archive

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog