Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited Vs Bhavya Pipe Industry

Introduction:

The case at hand is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) No. 2335 of 2024 filed in the Commercial Appellate Division (CAD) of the High Court. The appellant, Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited (TAFE), has challenged an order made by the Principal Commercial Court at Egmore, Chennai, dated 16.08.2024. The impugned order returned a plaint by invoking Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The appeal pertains to a dispute between TAFE and Bhavya Pipe Industry, and the core issue revolves around the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court and the Commercial Division of the High Court in hearing the matter.

Background:

The case involved a plaint that was valued at Rs. 200 for the relief of a permanent injunction. The initial question was whether the Commercial Division or the Commercial Appellate Division would hear this matter. The court referred to various legal precedents and statutes, including the Commercial Courts Act (CCA), to determine the appropriate jurisdiction.

Relevant Provision of Law Applicable:

The relevant provisions of law applicable in this case include the CPC and the CCA. Specifically, the court discussed Section 2(4) of the CPC, which defines 'district,' and Section 21 of the CCA, which outlines the overriding effect of the CCA. The court also considered the first proviso to Section 7 of the CCA, which deals with the jurisdiction of Commercial Divisions of High Courts.

Issue of the Case:

The primary issue before the court was to determine the correct forum for hearing the matter—whether it should be the Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of the High Court. This involved interpreting the provisions of the CCA and the CPC to ascertain the pecuniary jurisdiction and the nature of the commercial disputes as per Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the CCA.

Reason of the Court:

The court meticulously examined the various arguments presented by both sides. It considered the factual matrix of the case and the legal principles laid down in precedents such as Padma Sundara Rao and Super Cassettes. The court reasoned that the Commercial Court had not erred in relying on Section 2(4) of the CPC or other unamended provisions of the CPC. It also held that the first proviso to Section 7 of the CCA was correctly interpreted by the Commercial Court, which led to the conclusion that the suit should be heard by the Commercial Division and not the Commercial Court.

Final Decision:

The court concluded that all the points urged by both sides had been dealt with and that the arguments against the impugned order did not pass muster. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Commercial Court was sustained. The court emphasized that the Commercial Court's decision was in line with the law and the facts of the case, and there was no ground for interference.

Case Citation:Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited Vs Bhavya Pipe Industry: 27.08.2024:C.M.A. No.2335 of 2024:2024:MHC:3230: Madras High Court: M. SUNDAR & R. SAKTHIVEL, H.JJ

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar Vs Arun Shamrao Mardhekar

Introduction:

The case before us is a dispute between Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar and Arun Shamrao Mardhekar, involving allegations of trademark infringement and passing off in the business of selling 'Shev Chiwda', a traditional snack. The plaintiff, Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar, filed a suit in the District Court, Satara, seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant, Arun Shamrao Mardhekar, for using a deceptively similar name and packaging for his product, which the plaintiff claimed was causing confusion in the market and diluting his brand's goodwill.

Background:

The plaintiff, Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar, runs a business of Shev Chiwda under the brand name "Shubhlaxmi Chiwda Ritkawali" and has a registered trademark. The defendant, Arun Shamrao Mardhekar, started selling a similar product with packaging and branding that the plaintiff alleged was too similar to his own. The plaintiff filed an interim application (Ex.5) seeking to restrain the defendant from using the name "Shubhlaxmi Chiwda Ritkawali". The District Judge granted a temporary injunction against the defendant, restraining him from using certain names and packaging that were deemed to infringe on the plaintiff's trademark.

Relevant Provision of Law Applicable:

The case primarily involves the Trade Marks Act, which governs the registration and infringement of trademarks in India. The specific sections of the Act that are relevant to this case deal with the rights of a registered trademark holder and the prohibition of trademark infringement and passing off.

Issue of the Case:

The main issue in the case is whether the defendant's use of a particular name and packaging for his Shev Chiwda product constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark and amounts to passing off. The plaintiff claims that the defendant's actions have led to market confusion and have tarnished the reputation of his brand.

Reason of Court:

The court, upon hearing the case, found that the plaintiff had not used his registered trademark on his product packaging, which raised doubts about the validity of his infringement claims. The court also noted that the defendant had undertaken to change the color of his packaging from red to blue, which would help differentiate his product from the plaintiff's. Additionally, the court considered the fact that the defendant had applied for and received new trademarks, which further complicated the issue of infringement.

Final Decision:

The Commercial Appeal from Order No. 13 of 2023 was allowed by the court, and the order passed by the Trial Court was quashed and set aside.

Case Citation: Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar Vs Arun Shamrao Mardhekar: 03.09.2024: COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 13 OF 2023: 2024:BHC-AS:35381-DB: Bombay High Court: A.S. Chandurkar & Rajesh S. Patil, H.JJ

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Mount Everest Breweries Limited Vs Excise Commissioner Madhya Pradesh

Introduction:

The case at hand involves Mount Everest Breweries Limited (the petitioner) versus the Excise Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh and others, including Respondent No. 3, who is a company engaged in the manufacturing of beer and wines. The dispute revolves around the registration of a beer label by Respondent No. 3, which the petitioner claims is deceptively similar to its own registered label for "MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEER."

Background:

Mount Everest Breweries Limited, with its manufacturing unit in Sirmaur, Mhau, and a registered office in Indore, holds a B-3 license for manufacturing foreign liquor. The company produces "MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEER" and has a registered label for this product. Respondent No. 3, another company registered under the Companies Act, applied for the registration of the label "VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER" before the Excise Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner objected to this application, claiming that the label sought by Respondent No. 3 was deceptively similar to its own, and that this would likely cause confusion among consumers. Despite the objection, the Excise Commissioner registered Respondent No. 3's label, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the decision.

Relevant Provisions of Law Applicable:

The case is governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Section 2(h) which defines a deceptively similar mark as one that closely resembles another mark, likely to deceive or cause confusion. Additionally, the Madhya Pradesh Bear and Wine Rules, 2002, and the Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, provide the regulatory framework for the registration of labels for alcoholic beverages in the state of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 9 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, requires the Excise Commissioner to ensure that no new labels registered bear similarity or resemblance to any prevalent label of another manufactory.

Issue of the Case:

The central issue is whether the label "VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER" registered by Respondent No. 3 is deceptively similar to the petitioner's "MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEER," thereby infringing the petitioner's trademark and potentially causing confusion among consumers.

Reason of Court:

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore, found that the labels in question were indeed similar, with the red color background, black strip, and unique color combination of golden, red, and brown, as well as the prominent use of the numeral "60000," being identical. The court reasoned that these similarities were likely to mislead consumers into believing that the products were from the same source. The court also noted that Respondent No. 3 had previously given an undertaking not to use the impugned mark "VASCO 60000," which they later violated by applying for registration with minor changes.

Final Decision:

The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the orders of the Excise Commissioner and the previous writ petition that had dismissed the petitioner's claim. The court directed Respondent No. 3 to apply afresh for the registration of a new label that does not infringe on the petitioner's trademark. The court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining distinctiveness in branding to avoid consumer confusion and upholds the petitioner's rights under trademark law.

Case Citation: Mount Everest Breweries Limited Vs Excise Commissioner Madhya Pradesh: 27.08.2024: WRIT APPEAL No. 1852 of 2024: WA-1852-2024: Madhya Pradesh High Court: VIVEK RUSIA and BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Irvinder Kaur Chadha Supreme Agencies Vs Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd

Introduction:

The case before us is "Irvinder Kaur Chadha Supreme Agencie Vs Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd." This is a trademark dispute that has been adjudicated in the High Court of Delhi, with Justice Mini Pushkarna presiding. The case involves a petition for the removal of the trademark "GARNISH" registered under no. 2970803 and 2970802 in Class 6 in favor of Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 1), and a subsequent application for rectification of the register of Trade Marks under Section 47/57/125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Background:

The petitioner, Irvinder Kaur Chadha Supreme Agencie, claims the right to the trademark "GARNISH" based on its prior use and recognition in a civil suit (CS(OS) 1697/2005). The petitioner's father, Mr. H.S. Sethi, initiated the business and allowed the petitioner to use the trademark "GARNISH" in 1983. Disputes arose within the family, leading to litigation and an eventual settlement. The petitioner seeks to remove the trademark registration from Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and rectify the register, arguing that there is no evidence of the respondent's use of the trademark and that the petitioner has been recognized as the rightful user.

Relevant Provision of Law Applicable:

The primary legislation applicable in this case is the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Act pertain to the rectification of the register, the removal of registered trademarks, and the rights of registered users, respectively. These provisions enable parties to seek corrections or cancellations in the register of trademarks if there are grounds to do so, such as non-use, improper registration, or changes in trademark ownership.

Issue of the Case:

The central issue is the ownership and rightful use of the trademark "GARNISH." The petitioner contends that despite the trademark being registered in the name of Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner has been recognized and approved by a judicial order to use the trademark, and there is no evidence of the respondent's use of the trademark. The petitioner argues that the registration should be removed and the register rectified to reflect the petitioner's rights.

Reason of Court:

The court, after hearing the counsel for both parties and perusing the terms of settlement, found that the petitioner's submissions regarding prior use and non-use by the respondent remained un-rebutted. The court noted that the trademark "GARNISH" had been assigned to the petitioner and recognized her right to use the mark since 1983. The court acknowledged the settlement between the petitioner and her family members, which further supported the petitioner's claim.

Final Decision:

In view of the amicable settlement, the court decreed the present suit in terms of the application marked as Exhibit C-1, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The court ordered a decree sheet to be drawn up accordingly, and dismissed the application and O.A. (Order of Application) as the suit stands decreed. This decision effectively upholds the petitioner's rights to the trademark "GARNISH" and directs that the register of trademarks be rectified to reflect this outcome.

Case Citation: Irvinder Kaur Chadha Supreme Agencies Vs Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd: 30.07.2024: 2024/DHC/6223: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 123/2021: Mini Pushkarna, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Atcom Technology Co. Ltd Vs Rahul Gupta

Introduction:

The case before us is Atcom Technology Co. Ltd Vs Rahul Gupta, with a Neutral Citation Number of 2023/DHC/001263. It involves a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which pertains to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The petition challenges an order passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) on July 4, 2022, allowing the defendants to take certain documents on record.

Background:

The proceedings arise from CS (Comm) 179/2020, a suit initiated by Atcom Technology Co. Ltd against Rahul Gupta and others. The defendants sought to introduce documents that were not initially filed with their written statement. The Commercial Court allowed this, subject to a cost, but the plaintiff argued that this was contrary to Rule 14 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The plaintiff petitioned under Article 227, claiming that the Commercial Court's order should be set aside.

Relevant Provision of Law Applicable:

Article 227 of the Constitution of India grants the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. This power is to ensure that these bodies act within their authority and in a legally expected manner. However, this power is not to be used to correct all wrong decisions but only in cases of serious dereliction of duty or violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.

Issue of the Case:

The primary issue is whether the High Court, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, can interfere with the Commercial Court's decision to allow the defendants to take additional documents on record. This involves determining if the Commercial Court's order constitutes a serious dereliction of duty or a violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.

Reason of the Court:

The High Court, in its judgment, noted that the Supreme Court had advocated a liberal approach in admitting additional documents when the trial has not yet commenced. The High Court also considered the distinction between "good cause" and "sufficient cause" when allowing belated filing of documents, with "good cause" requiring a lower degree of proof. The High Court, in considering the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, found sufficient cause for the belated filing of documents by the defendants.

Final Decision:

The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Commercial Court's order. It held that there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the Commercial Court's decision under its supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court emphasized that its role under Article 227 is not to reappreciate evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the inferior court but to correct grave injustices or flagrant violations of law.

Case Citation: Atcom Technology Co. Ltd Vs Rahul Gupta: 20.02.2023: 2023/DHC/001263: CS (Comm) 179/2020: DHC: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Amba Shakti Steel Vs Sequence Ferro Private Ltd

In the High Court of Delhi, Amba Shakti Steels Ltd. (appellant) filed an appeal against an order dismissing its application for interim relief in a trademark infringement case against Sequence Ferro Private Limited (respondent). The appellant, established in 1989 and operating under various trademarks including AMBA and AMBA SHAKTI, alleged that the respondent's use of the trademark AMMAJI for similar steel products infringed its registered trademarks and constituted passing off.

The appellant, with a significant turnover and extensive marketing efforts, claimed that the respondent's adoption of AMMAJI was made with malafide intention to capitalize on its goodwill. The respondent, however, argued that the trademarks were not similar, the appellant had not acted with clean hands, and there was no likelihood of confusion due to the vigilance of customers for high-value items like TMT bars.

The Commercial Court dismissed the appellant's application, finding the trademarks dissimilar and the appellant had not taken action against other entities using similar marks. On appeal, the High Court found that the Commercial Court had not adequately considered the overall commercial impression of the trademarks and that the appellant was not required to pursue action against all similar mark users to protect its rights.

The High Court noted the appellant's long-standing use of its trademarks, the respondent's recent adoption of AMMAJI, and the potential for customer confusion due to the similarity in the marks' overall impression. The Court also considered the appellant's larger turnover and the balance of convenience in its favor. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the trademark AMMAJI or any deceptively similar marks until the suit's disposal.

Case Citation: Amba Shakti Steel Vs Sequence Ferro Private Ltd: 03.09.2024: 2024:DHC: 6703-DB: FAO (COMM) 41/2024: DHC: Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.