Saint-Analytix Business Solutions I Pvt Ltd Vs Nihir Shah

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 08.06.2022
CASE NO: Appeal from Order No. 113 of 2021
CASE TITLE: Saint-Analytix Business Solutions I Pvt Ltd Vs Nihir Shah
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Ashutosh J.Shastri

Brief Note on the case: 1.Respondent No.1 was ex-employee of the Appellant.

2. The Appellant filed suit against the Respondents restraining him fro not to disclose confidential information of the Appellant.

3.Injunction was declined by the Trial Court against which Appeal was filed.

4.In Appeal the Respondent No.1 undertook not to use the confidential information till next date. .

5.The Respondent Kept on using the confidential information in spite of undertaking, hence contempt application was filed by the Appellant.

6.The Respondent No.1 filed application for cross examination in contempt petition.

7.The Court refused to passed any order on application seeking to cross examination in a contempt petition as rights and contentions of the parties are yet to be adjudicated. Para 25,26,27

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

Saint-Gobain Glass France Vs Harsha Exito Engineering (P) Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 22.06.2022
CASE NO: Civil Suit(Comm.Div) No.409 of 2019
CASE TITLE: Saint-Gobain Glass France Vs Harsha Exito Engineering (P) Ltd.
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Judicature at Madras
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Brief Note on the case: 1. Suit for infringement of Patent under No.305596 in relation to the system and method of installing glass panel was filed against the Defendant . Para 2

2. The patent application was filed on 25.03.2015 and the Suit Patent was granted on 11.01.2019. The patent application was the subject matter of a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Act and it is pertinent to note that the Suit Patent passed the twin tests of examination and pre-grant opposition. Ultimately, the Suit Patent was granted on 11.01.2019.Hencde Plaintiff was observed to be owner of Subject matter Patent. Para 7

3.The Court also observed that a suit for infringement shall not be filed until the patent is granted and, secondly, such suit shall not be filed in respect of acts of infringement committed before the date of publication of the application. Para 8

4.The Defendant stated that: TRIL awarded the contract on
07.02.2017, the clamps were procured on 05.04.2017 and the work of
installation of the glass panels was carried out between 20.04.2017 and
20.06.2017. All these activities are subsequent to the publication date.
Hence, the second condition is duly satisfied and, therefore, the action for
infringement is maintainable. Para 8.

5.The Plaintiff adduced evidence of infringement of its claims by the
Defendant. The Defendant did not lead any evidence to the contrary. Hence Defendant was held to be guilty of infringement of Patent Para 10,11

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

Neha Overseas Vs Khushi Impex

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 20.06.2022
CASE NO: COM IP SUIT NO.47 OF 2020
CASE TITLE: Neha Overseas Vs Khushi Impex
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Judicature at Mumbai
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: R.I.Chagla

Brief Note on the case: 1. Application has been filed by the Defendant seeking release of seized goods and seeking vacation of ex parte stay of injunction order dated 27.08.2020. Para 2

2.At the earlier occasion , the Defendant alleged that as cancellation petition has been filed before the Trademark registry in the year 04.03.2020, the suit proceeding is liable to be stayed under Section 124 of Trademarks Act 1999 and accordingly the suit was stayed vide order dated 06.07.2021. Para 3

3.The Plaintiff opposed that ex-parte order was passed on 27.08.2020. While present application seeking vacation of stay was filed in the year 2022, after lapse of almost 2 years. There is delay in filing present application seeking vacation of ex-parte injunction. Para 5.

4.The Hon'ble Court agreed that there was considerable delay in filing the present application, seeking vacation of ex-parte injunction order. Para 7

5.Merely pendency of cancellation petition before the Registrar of Trademark, is not a ground for seeking vacation of stay. Para 11.

6.The Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of infringement and passing off. Para 12

7.The court rejected the application of the Defendant seeking vacation of ex-parte stay and releasing of seized goods after observing dishonesty on the part of Defendant in adoption of the impugned Trademark and also there was delay of 2 years in filing the application after passing of ex-parte stay. Para 9,13.

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

Jason Swist and Crude Solutions Vs MEG Energy Corp

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 20.06.2022
CASE NO: A-35-21: [2022 FCA 118]
CASE TITLE: Jason Swist and Crude Solutions Vs MEG Energy Corp
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble Federal Court of Canada
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Justices Laskin J.A. , Mactavish J.A. and Monaghan J.A..

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Appellant filed Canadian Patent No. 2,800,746, titled “Pressure Assisted Oil Recovery” (the 746 patent), describes a method of extracting heavy oil from underground reservoirs . Para 1

2. This Appeal was filed as claim for infringement was denied and counter claim of was allowed by the Trial Court on the ground of anticipation. Para 2

3. Claim construction must be the same for the purpose of validity and for the purpose of infringement. Para 13

4.For the requirement of disclosure to be satisfied, it is not necessary that “the exact invention” have been made and publicly disclosed; rather, “the requirement of prior disclosure means that the prior patent must disclose subject matter. Para 52.

5.The concept of “special advantage” has been associated with selection patents. A selection patent is a patent (most commonly a pharmaceutical patent) “devoted to a selection of a particular compound, or compounds, from a larger grouping of compounds previously disclosed in general terms and claimed in a pre-existing genus patent. Para 70

6.Having said that, the Hon'ble Division Bench rejected the Appeal as there was no any perversity in the Judgement assailed.

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

Texzone Information Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vision Communications & Another

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 02.06.2022
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 402 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Texzone Information Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vision Communications & Another
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M Singh

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Plaintiff started organizing a trade show in the year 2011 under the name ‘HGH INDIA. Para 13

2. in May, 2022, the Plaintiff learnt that a similar trade show was being organized by the Defendant No.1 under the name ‘IHF’. Para 14

3. Accordingly the subject matter suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction, restraining passing off, infringement of copyright, unfair competition etc. Para 13

4.The Defendant copied contents of Terms and Conditions of Plaintiff's website and its brochure. Para 17.

5.Defendant was directed to take down the infringing contents from their web site. Para 18

6.It is one of those unique case where relief pertaining to contents of web site was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

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

Metis Learning Solutions Private Limited Vs Flipkart India

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 01.06.2022
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 393 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Metis Learning Solutions Private Limited Vs Flipkart India Private Limited and Ors
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Justice Mr. Jyoti Singh

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Plaintiff creative interactive tools to aid early learning for Children under the Trademark EINSTEIN BOX.

2. EINSTEIN BOX was launched by the Plaintiff since the year 2016. Para 20,22.

3.Plaintiff obtained registration for the trademark “EINSTEIN BOX” in Class 28 in 2019, claiming user since 2016 Para 25.

4.Defendant No. 1 approached the Plaintiff in the beginning of April
2021, with a proposal to directly purchase the Einstein Box products from
the Plaintiff to provide them to its customers on more favourable terms via
Flipkart.com in order to expand Defendant No. 1’s market share over other
online e-commerce platforms. Para 26

5.Defendant was selling the impugned product under the name NEWTON BOX with identical colour combination. Accordingly ex-parte injunction was granted. Para 32,41

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

Alkem Laboratories Limited Vs Laborate Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 17.06.2022
CASE NO: FAO (Comm) 94 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Alkem Laboratories Limited Vs Laborate Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi(Division Bench)
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Justice Mr. Jyoti Singh+Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Appeal was filed by Defendant/Appellant where by the Ld. Trial Court declined to vacate the injunction order. The Ld. Trial court also rejected the application of Defendant under Section 151 CPC, seeking permission to sale the existing stock. Para 3

2. Preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent with
regard to maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the relief of selling
the existing stock was sought by the Appellant in an application filed under
section 151 CPC and no appeal lies against an order passed under the said
provision. Para 6

3.The Court rejected the preliminary objection by observing A perusal
of the impugned order dated 09.06.2022, wherein the learned Trial Court has
rejected the prayer of the Appellant to sell the existing stock, clearly
indicates that the order has been rendered under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
While it is a matter of record and cannot be disputed that the prayer for sale
of existing stock was made in an application under section 151 CPC,
however, the decision thereon has been rendered as a part of the order under
Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, treating the said relief as an ancillary and/or
alternate interim relief. Para 12

4.The permission to sell existing product was granted as the product was schedule H drug and even Respondent did not challenge the quality of Appellant's product. Para 13

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

Hindustan Unilever Limited. Vs USV Private Limited.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 09.06.2022
CASE NO: Commercial IP Suit (L) No.805 of 2021
CASE TITLE: Hindustan Unilever Limited. Vs USV Private Limited.
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Bombay
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Justice A.K.Menon

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Subject matter Suit was filed by the Plaintiff against advertising campaign launched by the defendant to publicize its products under the brand SEBAMED, amounting to disparagement of plaintiffs’ products viz. Lux, Dove, Pears and Rin. Para 1-2.

2. The plaintiffs are particularly aggrieved by the fact the plaintiffs’ soap Lux was said to have a pH value of 10 equivalent to the plaintiffs’ detergent soap Rin thereby alluding to the fact that by using Lux was equivalent to using a
detergent Rin whereas SEBAMED had a “perfect pH 5.5. for sensitive
skin.”Para 8.

3.Thus it was alleged that use of Plaintiff's product namely Lux, which have pH value 10, equivalent to a detergent soap. Hence it was not suitable to sensitive skin. While Defendant's SEBAMED product was having pH value of 5.5, hence was suitable to sensitive skin.

4.The Court observed that comparison by the Defendant with Plaintiff's soap is not appropriate. Both the competing products of the parties do not intended to serve same purpose. Para 69.

5.The Defendant tried to disparage the Plaintiff's product Lux by making its comparison with RIN which is a detergent . Para 77.

6.Defendant's product is alkali free and is suitable for sensitive skin only. Since Defendant's product was soap free hence making its comparison with pH value of Plaintiff's product is unfair and unreasonable. Para 74,78.

7.Defendant's campaign was also found to be disparaging given the fact that as per own admission of the Defendant, most of the soap reflects pH value in the range of 9.01 to 11. Para 80.

8.The comparison done by the Plaintiff was neither bonafide nor scientific. Para 81.

9. Comparison made on the basis of pH value , was also unfair. The comparative advertisement made by the Defendant attempted to discredit the Plaintiff's product. Para 82.

10.Resultantly , Plaintiff was granted interim injunction against the Defendants.

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

Crazy Concepts and Mazes Pvt. Ltd. Vs N.Venkta Yayadri Rao

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 09.06.2022
CASE NO: Appeal from Order No.197 of 2017
CASE TITLE: Crazy Concepts and Mazes Pvt. Ltd. Vs N.Venkta Yayadri Rao
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: In the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Dr. Justice A.P.Thaker

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Appellant filed subject matter suit on the basis of copyright in artistic/ literary/ dramatic/ musical works
under the title “SCARY HOUSE and the Trademark SCARY HOUSE. Para 2.2.

2. The case was filed against the Defendants (Defendant No.1 was the ex-employee of the Plaintiff) as the same has
started “TERRIFIC DEVIL ZONE” with substantial and material
reproduction and adaptation of said work of plaintiffs. Para 2.6

3.Injunction was declined by the Ld. Trial Court , against which the present Appeal was filed. Para 1.

4.The Hon'ble Court reiterated the well settled principle of interference in Appellate Jurisdiction.

5.To justify interference, the appellant would have to demonstrate that the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or perversely or where the Court had ignored settled principles of law regarding grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. Para 5.

6.By virtue of Section 22 of Copyright Act 1957, copyright in relation to published literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works would subsist in the life time of the author and until 60 years from the beginning of calendar year next following the year in which the author dies. Para 7.

8.Adaptation in relation an artistic work includes the conversion of work into a dramatic work by way of performance in public or otherwise. Para 8.

9.The Plaintiff has put on record various documents showing that the work of the Defendants was nothing , but in fact work of the Plaintiff in different name. This factum was also not disputed by the Defendant. Para 8.

10. In view of the above, trial court order was set aside and Appeal was allowed. Para 9.

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

Benjamin Moore & Co. Vs Attorney General Of Canada

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 17.06.2022
CASE NO: T-1340-20 and T-1341-20 [2022 FC 923]
CASE TITLE: Benjamin Moore & Co. Vs Attorney General Of Canada
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Federal Court of Cananda
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Associate Chief Justice Gagné

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. While doing the claim construction in the claim of a Patent, purposive construction has to be applied, instead of problem solving test.

2. The key to purposive construction is the identification by
the court, with the assistance of the skilled reader, of the particular
words or phrases in the claims that describe what the inventor
considered to be the “essential” elements of his invention. Para 15

3.Purposive construction also indicates that according to the intent of the inventor, expressed or inferred from the claims, that a particular element is essential irrespective of its practical effect. Para 27 (iv).

3.The order of the commissioner was set aside as the Commissioner of Patent , instead of purposive construction , used problem solution test. Para 15,16,21, 36.

4.The evaluation of Purposive construction entails the following steps.(Para 27).

(e) The claims language will, on a purposive construction, show
that some elements of the claimed invention are essential while
others are non-essential. The identification of elements as essential
or non-essential is made.

(i) on the basis of the common knowledge of the worker skilled in the art to which the patent relates.

(ii) as of the date the patent is published.

(iii) having regard to whether or not it was obvious to the skilled reader at the time the patent was published that a variant of a particular element would not make a difference to the way in which the invention works; or

(iv) according to the intent of the inventor, expressed or inferred from the claims, that a particular element is essential irrespective of its practical effect;

(v) without, however, resort to extrinsic evidence of the inventor's intention.

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