Showing posts with label G M Modular Vs Syska Led. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G M Modular Vs Syska Led. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 23, 2022

G M Modular Vs Syska Led

====================
Order Date:22.08.2022
Case No.CS (Comm) 329 of 2021
Delhi High Court
Navin Chawla, H.J.
G.M.Modular Vs Syska Led 

The Subject matter Suit for Design Infringement was filed by the Plaintiff on the basis of its registered design of the ‘LED Surface Light’, duly registered with the Controller of Design, under Design No. 282812, dated 22.04.2016, in Class 26-03. 

The Suit was filed before the Ld.District Court Delhi where in initially ex parte injunction was granted. However the matter got transferred to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as plea of invalidity was taken by the Defendant.

The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff has also obtained Trade Mark registration in relation to same design. Hence by virtue of Section 2 (d )of the Design Act 2000, the Plaintiff is estopped from claiming design right in the same.

Thought plaintiff sought to clarify that the afore mentioned Design and Tradeamrk Registrations were obtained as per law laid down by the Hon'bke High Court of Delhi in Mohan Lal Case, during the relevant time. As of now the Plaintiff has already sought withdrawal of the afore mentioned Design, in view of Carlsberg Judgement.

However the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi rejected this argument of the Plaintiff by observing that filing of the application seeking registration in the shape of the product as a trade mark simultaneously with the application for registration of the same as a design under the Act, would render the registration of the design suspect and disentitle the plaintiff to an ad interim relief. 

The Court further observed that filing of an application seeking cancellation of the registration as a trade mark subsequently will be insufficient to wipe out the disability of such shape being registered as a design. 

Another reason for vacating the ex parte injunction was that the Plaintiff was getting subject matter Design product manufactured from China. Though the Plaintiff argued that the same was getting the subject matter Design product manufactured from China on Job Work basis, however no document substantiating this claim was filed by the Plaintiff. In view of above the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to vacate the ex parte injunction granted in its favour.

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

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