Thursday, July 7, 2022

Bijoy Vs Gopinath and Ors

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 17.06.2022
CASE NO: OP(C) No.1600 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Kerala at Ernaculum
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree C.S.Dias
CASE TITLE: Bijoy Vs Gopinath and Ors

Brief Note on the case: There is no legal stipulation under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC that counter claim should be headed by a cause title. Para 11

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

Anugya Gupta Vs Ajay Kumar

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.07.2022
CASE NO: CS(Comm) No. 422 of 2020
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Navin Chawla
CASE TITLE: Anugya Gupta Vs Ajay Kumar

Brief Note on the case: 1.Plaintiff adopted trademark SARKARIRESULT on 01.01.2012. Para 2.

2. Defendant adopted SARKARIRESULT.INFO. Para 9.

3.Defendant also applied for SARKARIREULT before Registrar of Trademark. Para 9.

4.Defendants trademark was also registered. Para 9.

5.Defendant alleged to have adopted the impugned Trademark in 2015. Para 15

6.Plaintiff has already put on record its domain name SARKARIRESULT.COM registered on 01.01.2012. Para 24.

7. Registration does not prove its user. Para 32

8.The Defendant filed application as proposed to be used. Such declaration is final. Para 32

9.Plaintiff was granted relief as the defendant itself has applied for trademark registration, hence can not plead the same to be generic. Para 34

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

3M Company Vs Vikas Sinha and another

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.07.2022
CASE NO: CS(OS) No. 144 of 2019
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Navin Chawla
CASE TITLE: 3M Company Vs Vikas Sinha and another

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Defendants filed the written statement after delay of 118 days after service of summons. Para 2.5.

2. The written statement, which was filed after delay of 118 days, was not accompanied with any application seeking condonation of delay. Para 5.6.

3.The reason given by the defendant that the same was trying to amicably settle the dispute does not amount to be plausible reason. Para 5.9.

4.In such situation, the application seeking condonation of delay was rightly rejected. Para 5.10.

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

Saturday, July 2, 2022

Guidelines for making a Patent Application ready for grant

Pre grant and post grant opposition proceedings, if any,  may precede the grant of a patent. However, the Patent Application must be filed first in order to be granted.

According to the Patent Act 1970, which governs law pertaining to intellectual property rights in patents, patent applications must be filed and pursued within a certain time period.

A patent application must be filed within a certain amount of time in order for the patent to be granted. How does the time limit work? We will look at different provisions governing this process.

In order to appreciate this process, Section 6, 7 of Patent Act 1970 along with its sub sections are reproduced as under:

“6. Persons entitled to apply for patents:

(1) Subject to the provisions contained in section 134, an application for a patent for an invention may be made by any of the following persons, that is to say,-

(a) by any person claiming to be the true and first investor of the invention;

(b) by any person being the assignee of the person claiming to be the true and first inventor in respect of the right to make such an application;

(c) by the legal representative of any deceased person who immediately before his death was entitled to make such an application.

(2) An application under sub-section (1) may be made by any of the persons referred to therein either alone or jointly with any other person.

7. Form of application
8.
(1) Every application for a patent shall be for one invention only and shall be made in the prescribed form and filed in the patent office.

(2) Where the application is made by virtue of an assignment of the right to apply for a patent for the invention, there shall be furnished with the application, or within such period as may be prescribed after the filing of the application, proof of the right to make the application.

(3) Every application under this section shall state that the applicant is in possession of the invention and shall name the owner claiming to be the true and first inventor; and where the person so claiming is not the applicant or one of the applicants, the application shall contain a declaration that the applicant believes the person so named to be the true and first inventor.

(4) Every such application (not being a convention application) shall be accompanied by a provisional or a complete specification.”
Section 6 of the Patent Act governs the first step in filing a patent application, while Section 7 of the Patent Act governs the form of the patent application. Section 8 addresses the requirement for foreign application disclosure, while Sections 9 and 10 address the requirements for provisional and complete specification.

The publication of the patent application in a patent journal is the second step in the patent application process. Section 11A of the Patent Act of 1970 and Rule 24 of the Patent Rules 2003 govern this.

Typically, the patent application is published in the Patent Journal within 18 months of filing. However, there is a procedure for urgent publication of the patent application upon payment of an urgent fee. The urgent filing request is governed by Section 11 A (2) of the Patent Act 1970 and Rule 24A of the Patent Act 2003.

The third stage of the patent application process has begun. It entails submitting a request for examination, which is governed by Section 11B of the Patent Act 1970 and Section 24 B (1) of the Patent Rules 2003.

According to Section 24 B (1) of the Patent Rules 2003, the request for examination must be made within 48 months of the date of priority of application or the date of filing of the patent application, whichever is earlier.
To better understand this process, Rule 24 of Patent Rule 2003 and its sub sections are reproduced below:

“Chapter IV Publication and Examination of Applications

24. Publication of application:

The period for which an application for patent shall not ordinarily be open to public under sub-section (1) of section 11A shall be eighteen months from the date of filing of application or the dale of priority of the application, whichever is earlier

Provided that the period within which the Controller shall publish the application in the journal shall ordinarily be one month from the date of expiry of said period, or one month from the date of request for publication under rule 24A.

24A. Request for publication:

A request for publication under sub-section (2) of section 11 A shall be made in Form 9.

24B. Examination of application:

1.i. A request for examination under section 11 13 shall be made in Form 18 within forty-eight months from the date of priority of the application or from the date of filing of the application, whichever is earlier;

ii.   The period within which the request for examination under sub-section (3) of section 11B to be made shall be forty-eight months from the date of priority if applicable, or forty-eight months from the date of filing of the application;

iii.  The request for examination under sub-section (4) of section 11B shall be made within forty-eight months from the date of priority or from the date of filing of the application, or within six months from the date of revocation of the secrecy direction, whichever is later;

iv.  The request for examination of application as filed according to the 'Explanation' under sub-section (3) of section 16 shall be made within forty-eight months from the date of filing of the application or from the date of priority of the first mentioned application or within six months from the date of filing of the further application, whichever is later;

v.   The period for making request for examination under section 11B, of the applications filed before the 1st day of January, 2005 shall be the period specified under the section 11B before the' commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 or the period specified under these rules, whichever expires later.

2.i. The period within which the Controller shall refer the application and specification and other documents to the examiner in respect of the applications where the request for examination has been received shall ordinarily be one month from the date its publication or one month from the date of the request for examination whichever is later:

Provided that such reference shall be made in order in which the request is filed under sub-rule (1).

i. The period within which the examiner shall make the report under sub-section (2) of section 12, shall ordinarily be one month but not exceeding three months from the date of reference of the application to him by the Controller;

ii. the period within which the Controller shall dispose off the report of the examiner shall ordinarily be one month from the date of the receipt of the such report by the Controller.

3.A first examination report along with the application and specification shall be sent to the applicant or his authorised agent ordinarily within six months from the date of the request for examination or six months from date of publication whichever is later. In case other interested person files the request, for examination, an intimation of such examination may be sent to such interested person.

4.The time for putting an application in order for grant under section 21 shall be twelve months from the date on which the first statement of objection is issued to the applicant to comply with the requirements.”

Now, within one month of publication or within one month of the applicant's request for examination, whichever comes first, the Controller of Patents must recommend the published Patent Application to the examiner of Patents for examination. The Patent Rules of 2003, Rule 24B(2)(1), governs this procedure.

The controller of patents must refer the subject to the patent examiner, who must then deliver a report within one month after receiving the referral. Rule 24B(2)(ii) of the Patent Rules 2003 governs this exercise.

The Controller of Patent must dispose of the examiner's report within one month of receiving it, while subsequent stages are controlled by Rule 24 B (2) (iii) of the Patent Rules 2003.

The issuance of the first examination report is the following action, and it must be completed within a month of the disposal of the examiner's report in accordance with Rule 24B(3) of the Patent Rules 2003.

The applicant must now respond to the examination report and, if necessary, any additional objections raised by the controller in accordance with Rule 24 B. (iv). But no deadline has been established for it.

Setting a deadline for granting the application within six months of the date the initial examination report is issued is the next stage. This timeline is stipulated in Rule 24B(5) of the Patent Rules of 2003, and it may also be extended by a further three months under Rule B(6) of the same rules.

A patent applicant is required to complete all required compliances on time in accordance with Section 21 of the Patent Act of 1970, which sets the time for filing an application before it can be granted, or the application will be regarded abandoned.

It has not been made clear if the applicant must submit a response to the initial examination report in accordance with Rule 24 B(2)(iii) of the Patent Rules 2003.

However, the maximum period for putting a patent application in order for grant is nine months, as per Rules 24 B (5) and (6).

Due to all of these considerations, it is possible that it will take a maximum of nine months to complete the test report's needs.

Additionally, the pre-grant opposition proceeding, if any, is part of the process of granting a patent. Even in pre-grant opposition proceedings, the requirement of timely filing of the reply and evidence applies.

Nonetheless, it is the applicant's responsibility to meet the requirements of the first examination report or any further objections raised by the controller of examiner, if any, within 9 months. It is critical for any patent applicant to respond to the patent controller's objection in a timely manner.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court,
Email: ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
Mob:9990389539

Friday, July 1, 2022

Culver Max Entertainment Vs f1.mylivecricket.live and Ors

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 27.06.2020
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 439 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Culver Max Entertainment Vs f1.mylivecricket.live and Ors
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Judge Shri Sanjeev Narula

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief of permanent injunction against the Defendants to restrain them from infringing the rights of the Plaintiff in the forthcoming India-England International Cricket Series 2022.

2.The Defendants are in fact rogue infringing websites, which are engaged in the business of uploading pirated and unlicensed content. Among the various illegal acts done by them is the live streaming of various sporting
events.

3. The relief were asked against the afore mentioned rogue websites which were infringing plaintiff's right which has been acquired from England
and Wales Cricket Board Limited (ECB) to broadcast/ communicate the said
Sporting Event to the public in the territories of inter alia India

4.The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to grant ex-parte ad interim injunction against the afore mentioned 92 rogue web sites in one go.

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

Abhishek chaturvedi Vs State of UP

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 27.06.2020
CASE NO: Criminal Misc Bail Application 19599 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Abhishek chaturvedi Vs State of UP
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Judge Shri Ajit Singh

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Petitioner filed application seeking bail in relation to offence committed inter alia within the provision of Copyright Act.

2.Basic reason for grant of bail was that another accused with similar role assigned in commission of offence, has already been granted bail.

3. It was also submitted by the counsel for the Applicant that in case he is enlarged on bail. he would not be misusing the liberty.

4.Though the state opposed the bail. however parity of the applicant with co-accused was not denied. In such a situation, bail was granted to the Applicant.

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

#Adv_Ajay_Amitabh_Suman #Legalupdate #Legalblog #Legalnews #IP_Adjutor #Ipupdate #Iprlitigation #Ipr #Iprblog #Iprupdate #Iplitigation #Law #Lawyers #Litigation #Allahabadhighcourt #Bail #Copyright #Offence #Coaccused

Monday, June 27, 2022

Havells India Ltd Vs Shanghai Cet Electric Co. Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 01.06.2022
CASE NO: CS(Comm) No. 438 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Havells India Ltd Vs Shanghai Cet Electric Co. Ltd.
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Navin Chawla

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Subject matter contempt petition was filed by the Plaintiff on the ground that in spite of order of this Hon'ble Court , the Defendant No. 3 and 4 have failed to remove all the infringing links bearing the impugned Trademark/Logo HAVELLS. Para 3

2. In answer to that, the Defendant No.2 and 3 alleged that the said links were not used for listing of the impugned Products. Para 3

3.The Plaintiff insisted that even invisible use of trademark does amount to be user of a trademark. Para 9

4. Defendants also alleged that though there was specific prayer for removal of meta tags, however , no order to this effect was passed by the Court. Para 10

5.The court observed that It is settled law that a party cannot be held guilty of having committed contempt of Court if the order is not clear or specific and a bona fide doubt can at least be attributed in the mind of the parties on the scope and ambit of the order. Para 13

6.In view of the above, court did not held the Defendant guilty of contempt of court. However the Court directed the Defendant No.3 and 4 to remove all the infringing meta tags. Para 17

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

Voltas Limited Vs Ashok Kumar

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 20.06.2022
CASE NO: CS(Comm) No. 438 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Voltas Limited Vs Ashok Kumar
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Brief Note on the case: 1.Plaintiff filed subject matter suit on the basis of proprietary rights in Trademark VOLTAS.

2. The Defendants were using the impugned website containing the trademark VOLTAS of the plaintiff, i.e. www.myvoltascare.com

3.The Defendants also copied the entire look, feel, colour scheme, photographs of the Plaintiff‟s website.

4.In such situation, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass an ex-parte injunction against the Defendants from using the impugned Trademark VOLTAS and also the impugned domain name www.myvoltascare.com.

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

Bhanushali Studio Vs Telegram

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 16.06.2022
CASE NO: Commercial IPR Suit (L) No.18595 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Bhanushali Studio Vs Telegram
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: In the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Circuit Judges Mr. Justice R.I. Chagla

Brief Note on the case: 1.Plaintiff filed the subject matter suit with relief of inter-alia interim injunction for removal of infringing links having Plaintiff's subject matter film titled as Janhit Mein Jaari.

2.In this case, the Defendants were not known, however infringing activities were going on web links available on internet.

3. The Hon'ble recognized the concept of John doe order as mention in Notice of Motion 854/15 in Suit (L) 271/15 order dated 1.07.2016 titled as Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Gujarath Telelink Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and Notice of Motion (L) 3549/15 in Suit (L) 1326/15 order dated 17.12.2015 titled as Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Hathway Sonali Om Crystal Cable Pvt. Ltd. Anr. In both the matter, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature passed orders which are in the nature of John Doe order. Para 7-10.

4. Accordingly , in the present matter also John Doe order of Injunction was passed against the defendants.

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

Friday, June 24, 2022

In Re Steve Elster TM No.87749230

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 22.02.2022
CASE NO:2020-2205
CASE TITLE: In Re Steve Elster TM No.87749230
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Circuit Judges Mr. Justice Dyk Taranto, Mr. Justice Chen

Brief Note on the case: 1.Application TRUMP TOO SMALL was rejected on the ground that it consists of name of a living person, president Donald Trump.

2.The Subject matter Appeal was filed against rejection of this Trademark Application.

3. The provision of the Lanham Act section 2(c), prohibits registration of a trademark that consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature
identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.

4.The reversed finding of court below after observing that section 2(c) has limited application to private individuals because it requires consent
only if: “(1) the person is so well known that the public would reasonably assume a connection between the person and the goods or services.

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

Mondo Foods Co. Ltd. Vs Les Industries Torremond Inc

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 20.06.2022
CASE NO: 2022 FC 926
CASE TITLE: Mondo Foods Co. Ltd. Vs Les Industries Torremond Inc
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Federal Court of Canada
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Circuit Judges Mr. Justice McHaffie

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Applicant sought enforcement of its Trademark MONDO against the Respondent's Trademark TORREMONDO.

2.The Hon'ble Court observed as under : In the present case, Torré Monde’s impugned TORREMONDO trademarks incorporate the word MONDO which comprises the whole of the trademark in the ’083 Registration and the ’799 Registration. Para 13,16

3. The Federal Court allowed the claim of the Applicant and restrained the Respondent from using the Trademark TORREMONDO by observing that TorréMonde’s use of the TORREMONDO trademarks infringes the exclusive rights of Mondo Foods to the MONDO trademark conferred by the ’083 and ’799 Registrations. Para 34.

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

Golden Eye Media Vs Evo Lifestyle Products Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 22.06.2022
CASE NO: 2021-2096
CASE TITLE: Golden Eye Media Vs Evo Lifestyle Products Ltd.
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Circuit Judges Lourie, Schall, Reyna

Brief Note on the case: 1.This Appeal has been filed whereby Patent was of the Appellant was held to be invalid on the ground of functionality and obviousness.

2.The Federal Court observed that in determining whether a design is dictated by function, courts consider whether

The protected design represents the best design,”

Alternative designs would adversely affect the utility of the specified article,”

There are any concomitant utility patents,”

The advertising touts particular features of the design as having specific utility,” and

There are any elements in the design or an overall appearance clearly not dictated by function.” Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1322: Page 5

3.The Court further observed that Obviousness is a question of law that is reviewed denovo, based on underlying factual questions that are reviewed
for clear error.

The underlying factual inquiries include: the scope and content of the prior art;

The level of ordinary skill in the art;

The differences between the claimed invention and the prior
art; and

objective evidence of non-obviousness.

7.After observing the afore mentioned Test, the Federal Court dismissed the Appeal on the ground that order passed by the Trial Court Judge is correct.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
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