Remedi Healthcare Vs. Neurosynaptic Communications

Orders Passed by Indian Court are effective within Territory of India 

Facts of the Case:

Remedi Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. and Remedi, Inc., a South Korean company, appealed against an order passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District, in Com O.S. No. 111/2024. The dispute arose over the use of the trademark "Remedi." Neurosynaptic Communications Pvt. Ltd., the respondent, had obtained registration for the trademark "Remedi" in respect of medical diagnostic apparatus on April 2, 2019. The appellant argued that it had a global presence and had been using the trademark "Remedi" since 2012. The respondent, however, contended that the appellant had incorporated in India only in September 2023 and was informed that using the trademark "Remedi" would infringe on its registered trademark. The Commercial Court granted an interim injunction against the appellant, restraining it from using the "Remedi" trademark for medical and diagnostic products. The appellant's application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, seeking a stay of the suit pending rectification proceedings, was rejected.

Issues:

Whether the grant of an injunction against the appellant was justified and whether the application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act for a stay of the proceedings was wrongly rejected.

Reasoning of the Court:

The Karnataka High Court examined whether the Commercial Court had properly assessed the validity of the registered trademark and the appellant’s claim of prior use. The Court found that the respondent had been using the trademark since 2004 and had obtained registration in 2017 and 2019 for medical diagnostic apparatus under Class 10. The appellant, although using "Remedi" globally since 2012, failed to provide evidence of use in India before 2023. Since the respondent held a valid registered trademark and the appellant could not establish prior usage in India, the Commercial Court was justified in granting an injunction. The High Court also ruled that under Section 124(5) of the Trade Marks Act, a court can grant an injunction even if the validity of the trademark is under challenge. It further held that the Commercial Court's order did not specify territorial limits, and therefore, the injunction would only apply within India, as Indian courts do not have extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Decision:

The Karnataka High Court upheld the injunction granted by the Commercial Court, limiting its applicability to within India. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the respondent’s registered trademark should be protected. However, the Court clarified that the injunction would not extend beyond Indian jurisdiction.

Law Point Settled:

A registered trademark holder has the right to seek an injunction against an infringer, even if the infringer claims prior use outside India but fails to establish use within the country. A stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act is not automatic and does not prevent a court from granting an injunction while rectification proceedings are pending. Indian courts lack jurisdiction to enforce trademark injunctions outside the country.

Case Details:

Case Title: Remedi Healthcare vs. Neurosynaptic Communications

Date of Order: August 31, 2024

Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 264 of 2024

Court: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Judges: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaram and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G Basavaraja