Monday, July 24, 2023

Chapter 4 Corp Vs Dhanpreet Singh Trading as Punjabi Adda

Date of Judgement:11.07.2023
Case No.CS Comm 782 of 2022
Neutral Citation:2023:DHC:4922
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge:Prarhiba M Singh, H.J.
Case Title: Chapter 4 Corp Vs Dhanpreet Singh Trading as Punjabi Adda

Abstract:

This article discusses a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, which dealt with the issue of whether an ordinary dictionary word can be declared a well-known trademark. The Court's decision highlights the importance of acquired distinctiveness and distinctive fashion in determining the status of a well-known mark. The case involved a red-box device mark 'SUPREME,' and the Court granted protection to the specific logo while cautioning against blanket protection for the ordinary dictionary word 'SUPREME' itself.

Introduction:

Many trademarks comprise unique or invented words, there is a significant question about whether ordinary dictionary words can be eligible for well-known trademark status. A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court addresses this issue, shedding light on the criteria for recognizing ordinary dictionary words as well-known trademarks.

The Case and the Court's Observations:

The case before the Delhi High Court involved a red-box device mark 'SUPREME' used for readymade clothing. The plaintiff claimed that the mark had acquired a well-known status and sought protection against unauthorized use by others.

The Court's decision was based on several key observations:

Reputation and Acquired Distinctiveness:

The Court analyzed the plaintiff's averments, submitted documents, and the reputation of the 'SUPREME' red-box device mark. It concluded that the plaintiff had acquired a 'well-known' status for the specific logo.

Secondary Meaning:

The Court found that the red-box device 'SUPREME' had acquired a secondary meaning due to extensive and distinct usage in the market. Secondary meaning arises when consumers associate a particular word or symbol with a specific source or brand.

Period of Usage:

The Court considered the 29-year period during which the red-box device mark 'SUPREME' had been in use for readymade clothing. This long-term usage played a crucial role in establishing the mark's well-known status.

Well-Known Mark Declaration:

Considering the reputation, acquired distinctiveness, and extended usage, the Court declared the red-box device mark 'SUPREME' as a 'well-known' mark specifically in relation to apparel and clothing.

The Limitation on Protection for Ordinary Dictionary Words:

Despite recognizing the well-known status of the 'SUPREME' red-box device mark, the Court issued a cautionary note regarding the ordinary dictionary word 'SUPREME' itself. The Court clarified that the declaration of well-known status was limited to the specific red-box logo and not the word 'SUPREME' in a general sense.

Implications of the Judgment:

The Delhi High Court's judgment has significant implications for the protection of ordinary dictionary words as trademarks. It establishes that such words can be declared well-known trademarks if certain conditions are met:

Acquired Distinctiveness:

The primary requirement is to prove that the ordinary dictionary word has acquired distinctiveness through extensive use and association with the plaintiff's brand.

Distinctive Fashion:

Additionally, the word must be used in a distinctive fashion, often in combination with unique elements like logos or stylization, to set it apart from its common meaning.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court's recent judgment clarifies the possibility of an ordinary dictionary word being declared a well-known trademark. Businesses seeking such protection must demonstrate acquired distinctiveness and ensure that the word is used in a distinctive fashion.

While the judgment offers a pathway for the protection of ordinary words, it also rightly emphasizes the importance of acquired distinctiveness in safeguarding trademarks and preventing undue monopolization.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney

Sunday, July 23, 2023

Monsanto Holding Pvt.Ltd. Vs Competition Commission of India Limited

Date of Judgement:13.07.2023
Case No: LPA No. 247 of 2016.
Neutral Citation:2023:DHC:4783
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Nazmi Waziri, H.J.
Case Title: Monsanto Holding Pvt.Ltd. Vs Competition Commission of India Limited 

Analyzing the Jurisdictional Overlap: Competition Act Vs Patents Act in Patent Licensing Disputes

Abstract: 

This legal article delves into the critical question of whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can inquire into the actions of a patentee who asserts their patent rights in India. The article examines four appeals and a Writ Petition, which collectively raise this common issue of far-reaching implications. 

The analysis revolves around the interface between patents and competition law in India, exploring the statutory provisions and judicial precedents governing the subject matter. The article aims to shed light on the scope and limitations of CCI's authority under the Competition Act, 2002, when it comes to patent-related disputes.

Introduction

The intersection between intellectual property rights and competition law has been a subject of significant legal debate in various jurisdictions. In the present case, the court dealt with four appeals and a writ petition that raised a crucial question: Can the Competition Commission of India (CCI) inquire into the actions of a patentee under the Competition Act? 

The appeals and the petition stemmed from interventions by CCI against Ericsson and Monsanto concerning the fixation of licensing rates on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory terms and charging high royalties, respectively. 

The appellants, Monsanto and Ericsson, contended that the power to inquire into anti-competitive licensing of patents lies either with the Controller or the Civil Court under specific provisions of the Patents Act. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal,asserting that the Patents Act prevails over the Competition Act when it comes to matters of abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive agreements by a patentee in the exercise of its rights.

Background and Context

The Competition Act, enacted to promote fair competition, prevent anti-competitive practices, and protect consumer interests, governs anti-competitive agreements and the abuse of dominant market position across all sectors. 

On the other hand, the Patents Act is a specialized legislation that regulates the grant, administration, and enforcement of patents, granting inventors exclusive rights to exploit their inventions for a limited period Ericsson's intervention before the CCI was prompted by allegations of it using its dominant position in the market to fix exorbitant licensing rates on its terms for its standard-essential patents. 

Similarly, Monsanto faced CCI intervention on the grounds of charging high royalties for its genetically modified seeds, potentially leading to anti-competitive practices in the agricultural sector.

The Appellants' Contention

Monsanto and Ericsson put forth the argument that the authority to inquire into anti-competitive licensing of patents lies with either the Controller or the Civil Court. The appellants contended that these provisions encompassed matters related to licensing rates and any anti-competitive behavior by patentees.

The Court's Ruling

The court, in its judgment, recognized that the Competition Act is a general legislation designed to address anti-competitive agreements and the abuse of dominant market positions across all sectors. However, it distinguished between general and special legislation, observing that when a specific enactment deals with particular subject matter, it prevails over a general enactment concerning the same subject matter.

In this context, the court held that while the Competition Act addresses broader issues of competition and market dominance, the Patents Act is a specialized legislation that governs the rights and obligations of patentees, including the terms of licensing and the remedies for infringement. 

Thus, when the issue at hand involves abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive agreements by a patentee in the exercise of its rights under the Patents Act, the Patents Act becomes the special legislation, prevailing over the general provisions of the Competition Act.

Conclusion

The court's ruling in this case offers valuable clarity on the jurisdictional overlap between the Competition Act and the Patents Act in matters concerning patent licensing disputes.

By emphasizing the Patents Act as the specialized legislation governing patentees' actions, the court provides a clear delineation of authority for inquiries into anti-competitive practices related to patents. 

This decision not only helps preserve the integrity of specialized IP laws but also ensures that competition law is applied judiciously in contexts where patent rights and licensing practices are at the heart of the dispute. Moreover, the judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues, guiding both the Competition Commission and patentees on their respective roles and responsibilities in such matters.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
9990389539


Saturday, July 22, 2023

Verizon Trademark Services Llc Vs Vikas Kumar

Date of Judgement:11.07.2023
Case No.CS Comm 220 of 2023
Neutral Citation:2023:DHC:4911
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, H.J.
Case Title: Verizon Trademark Services Llc Vs Vikas Kumar

Documentary Evidences Required to Prove a Trademark as a Well-Known Trademark

Abstract:

This article examines the documentary evidence required to establish a trademark as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The article delves into the relevant criteria outlined in Section 11(6) of the Act and explores the evidence presented by the plaintiff to support their claim. The court's observations and final declaration regarding VERIZON's well-known status are also discussed.

Introduction:

In the context of intellectual property rights, trademarks play a crucial role in identifying and distinguishing goods or services offered by a particular entity. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, in India, provides for the recognition of well-known trademarks, affording them broader protection against unauthorized use. This article focuses on the case of VERIZON, which sought the recognition of its mark as a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act.

Legal Framework for Recognizing Well-Known Trademarks:

Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act defines a well-known trademark as one that has become so to a substantial segment of the public using the goods or services associated with the mark. Such recognition indicates a connection in the course of trade or the rendering of services between the mark and the person using it. The criteria for determining a well-known trademark are delineated in Section 11(6).

The plaintiff submitted substantial evidence to support VERIZON's claim as a well-known trademark:

(i) Knowledge and Recognition: Documents showcased the widespread knowledge and recognition of VERIZON in the relevant public, especially in India, due to effective promotional strategies.

(ii) Use and Geographical Area: The plaintiff demonstrated the extensive duration and geographical area of VERIZON's use in multiple classes and countries.

(iii) Promotion: Evidence highlighted the significant efforts put into promoting the trademark through advertising, publicity, and presentations on various websites.

(iv) Registration: VERIZON's registration in multiple classes in India and various countries substantiated its well-known status.

(v) Enforcement Records: The plaintiff provided 24 court orders protecting VERIZON's rights as a trademark, and recognition of its well-known status by WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in a previous case.

Court's Observations and Declaration:

Upon examining the evidence presented, the court found VERIZON to satisfy the criteria outlined in Section 11(6) for a well-known trademark. Consequently, the court declared VERIZON to be a well-known trademark concerning telecommunication services under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act.

Conclusion:

This case analysis illustrates the importance of documentary evidence in establishing a trademark as a well-known mark. VERIZON's success in obtaining recognition as a well-known trademark highlights the significance of consistent use, promotion, and enforcement of a mark. The judgment sets a precedent for future cases seeking to prove well-known trademark status and reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney

Friday, July 21, 2023

Carlton Shoes Limited Vs VIP Industries Limited

Date of Judgement:17.07.2023
Case No.CS Comm 730 of 2019
Neutral Citation:2023:DHC:4865
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, H.J.
Case Title: Carlton Shoes Limited Vs VIP Industries Limited

INTRODUCTION:

In a recent legal battle over trademark rights, both VIP and Carlton filed suits against each other claiming to be the registered proprietor of the trademark "CARLTON". The issue before the Hon'ble Court was to determine the party entitled to proprietary rights in the trademark and to assess whether infringement claims could be granted.

SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST ANOTHER REGISTERED PROPRIETOR: The Court started by acknowledging that both parties were indeed the registered proprietors of the trademark CARLTON. This fact alone posed a challenge to the court, as granting relief for trademark infringement would not be maintainable when both parties had equal rights to the trademark.

THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY OF GOODWILL AFFIRMED: However, the Court delved further into the evidence presented by both parties. VIP failed to establish a trans-border reputation that spilled over into India. A trans-border reputation is when a trademark develops a significant level of goodwill and reputation beyond the boundaries of its country of origin. In this case, VIP could not provide evidence to show that their CARLTON trademark had gained such reputation in India.

THE FIRST IN INDIA HAS SUPERIOR RIGHT OVER FIRST IN THE WORLD MARKET, SUBJECT TO CONDITION: On the other hand, CARLTON India successfully proved that it was the prior adopter and user of the CARLTON trademark in India. This means that they were the first ones to use the CARLTON trademark in connection with their goods or services in India. This played a significant role in the Court's decision-making process. Despite VIP being the prior adopter of the CARLTON trademark worldwide, the Court deemed it immaterial in determining the outcome of the case. The reason was that VIP could not establish any significant level of goodwill or reputation in India, the jurisdiction where the dispute was taking place. Consequently, their prior adoption of the trademark did not hold much weight in the final decision. Taking all these factors into consideration, the Court granted an injunction in favor of CARLTON India, prohibiting VIP from using the CARLTON trademark in India. On the other hand, VIP's request for an injunction was refused, as they failed to establish their rights and reputation in India.

NO RIGHT TO FIRST IN THE WORLD MARKET, IN CASE HE FAILS TO PROVES REPUTATION IN INDIA. This case serves as a reminder that in trademark disputes, the jurisdiction in which the rights are being claimed plays a crucial role. Merely being the prior adopter of a trademark globally does not automatically grant exclusive rights in specific jurisdictions. The party claiming infringement must prove their prior adoption and use in the relevant jurisdiction and establish a significant level of goodwill and reputation. Failure to do so can result in injunctions being granted against them, as was the case with VIP in this matter.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
9990389539

#IP_Adjutor #Trademark #Copyright #Design_infringement #Patent_infringement #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Iprupdate #Iprnews #Iprblog #Legalblog #law #legal

Thursday, July 20, 2023

Mahesh Kumar Khemka Vs State of UP

Date of Judgement:12.07.2023
Case No.Criminal Revision No.1799 of 2023
Neutral Citation:2023:AHC:137488
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Allahabad
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sudhanshu Panday, H.J.
Case Title:Mahesh Kumar Khemka Vs State of UP

THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF HON'BLE COURT WHILE ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITION AGAINST FRAMING OF CHARGE

This Revision has been filed against the Order of Ld. Magistrate where charges has been framed against the Petitioner inter alia under the Provisions of Copyright Act.

The Complainant also filed Civil Suit against the Petitioner where in no any relief of injunction was granted.

Reason of non grant of injunction against the Petitioner was that no evidence of any confusion was filed.

In view of the above the order of framing charge against the Petitioner was found not to be tenable in the eyes of law.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney

#IP_Adjutor #Trademark #Copyright #Design_infringement #Patent_infringement #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Iprupdate #Iprnews #Iprblog #Legalblog #law #legal
=====

Aswa Ghosh Vs VIZRT AG

Date of Judgement:19.07.2023
Case No.FAO IPD 5 of 2023
Neutral Citation:NA
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, H.J.
Case Title:Aswa Ghosh Vs VIZRT AG 

Appealability of WIPO Administrative Panel Orders under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

Introduction:

This legal article explores the issue of whether orders passed by the administrative Panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) are appealable under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 91 of the Trademarks Act 1999 provides the right to appeal for any person aggrieved by an order or decision of the Registrar under the Act or the rules made thereunder. The question in this case was whether the administrative Panel of WIPO can be considered as the Registrar under the meaning of the Trademarks Act 1999, thereby allowing appeals under Section 91 against its orders.

The Appeal:

This appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging an order passed by the administrative Panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 

Background:

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a comprehensive legislation in India governing trademark registration, protection, and enforcement. The Act aims to provide statutory protection to trademarks and prevent unauthorized use or infringement of these marks. It also establishes the office of the Registrar of Trademarks responsible for trademark registration and related matters.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization responsible for promoting intellectual property rights globally. Among its functions, WIPO operates a dispute resolution service for resolving domain name disputes, known as the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). The UDRP is not specific to India but is applied worldwide to resolve disputes related to domain names incorporating trademarks.

Issue:

The central issue in this legal matter was whether an order passed by the administrative Panel of WIPO, functioning under the UDRP, could be considered equivalent to an order of the Registrar under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, thus allowing appeals under Section 91 of the Act.

Decision:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ruled that the administrative Panel of WIPO is not equivalent to the Registrar as defined under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Therefore, appeals under Section 91 of the Act cannot be entertained against orders passed by the WIPO administrative Panel.

Analysis:

Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides the right to appeal to "any person aggrieved by an order or decision of the Registrar under this Act, or the rules made thereunder." To understand the applicability of Section 91, it is crucial to interpret the term "Registrar" as used in the Act.

The Act defines "Registrar" as the person appointed by the Central Government to perform the duties of the Registrar of Trademarks under the Act. The Registrar is responsible for registering trademarks, maintaining the trademark registry, and deciding various matters related to trademarks.

WIPO's administrative Panel, on the other hand, is a specialized body that deals with domain name disputes under the UDRP. The UDRP is a distinct mechanism, not governed by Indian law, and is intended to address domain name issues, mainly concerning cybersquatting and trademark infringement in domain names.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision essentially rested on the distinction between the roles and functions of the Registrar under the Trade Marks Act and the administrative Panel of WIPO under the UDRP. The court concluded that the administrative Panel does not possess the same authority and legal standing as the Registrar, and, therefore, its orders cannot be challenged under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision clarified that orders passed by the administrative Panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) are not appealable under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. As the administrative Panel is not considered the Registrar as defined in the Act, parties dissatisfied with its decisions must seek alternative remedies, if available, to challenge such orders. This ruling emphasizes the importance of understanding the scope and jurisdiction of different dispute resolution mechanisms while protecting intellectual property rights, both at the national and international levels.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
9990389539

#IP_Adjutor #Trademark #Copyright #Design_infringement #Patent_infringement #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Iprupdate #Iprnews #Iprblog #Legalblog #law #legal

Wednesday, July 19, 2023

MHG IP Holding Vs Registrar of Trademark

Date of Judgement:18.07.2023
Case No.C.A.Comm IPD TM 49 of 2021
Neutral Citation:2023:DHC:4976
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, H.J.
Case Title:MHG IP Holding (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. Vs The Registrar of Trademark , Delhi

THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF HON'BLE COURT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARK FOR REFUSAL OF TRADEMARK TIVOLI AND REMANDING BACK THE TRADEMARK APPLICATION BY THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IN VIEW OF SECTION 12 OF THE TRADEMARKS ACT 1999

This appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks on 25th June 2019.

The order refused registration of the Appellant's application (application no. 2835731).

The Registrar examined the Appellant's application and issued an examination report on 19th May 2016. The report cited similar marks that were already registered and raised objections under Section 11 of the Trademark Act.

The Appellant's defense includes the existence of the registration of their domain name www.tivolihotels.com, and their long-term use and adoption of the trademark "TIVOLI" since the year 1933.

This evidence is put forth to convince the Court that their case falls under the exception stated in Section 12 of the Act.

The Court believed that considering the prior adoption and use of the Appellant's trademark since 1933, the Registrar should have taken into account Section 12 of the Trademark Act while evaluating the Appellant's trademark application.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney

#IP_Adjutor #Trademark #Copyright #Design_infringement #Patent_infringement #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Iprupdate #Iprnews #Iprblog #Legalblog #law #legal

Rxprism Health System Vs Canva PTY Ltd

Date of Judgement:18.07.2023
Case No.CS Comm 573 of 2021
Neutral Citation:2023:DHC:4940
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, H.J.
Case Title:Rxprism Health System Vs Canva PTY Ltd

Patent Infringement Dispute: Unraveling the Contention Surrounding Essential Features

Introduction:

The case at hand centers around a patent infringement dispute where the Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of utilizing their patented technology without authorization. The Plaintiff's patent comprises seven distinct features (A1, A2, A3, A4, B5, C6, and C7), while the Defendant admits to three (A2, A3, and B5) and denies the presence of four (A1, A4, C6, and C7) in their product. The Court granted injunction against the Defendant on the ground that impugned product of the defendant contains essential features which were covered under the plaintiff's patent. 

Contention Surrounding Features A1 and A4:  Layered Presentation (A1): 

The Plaintiff's patent explicitly describes a layered presentation as feature A1. The Defendant's product is alleged to incorporate a similar presentation style, which the Plaintiff argues falls within the scope of their protected invention. Determining whether the Defendant's product includes this feature becomes pivotal in assessing potential infringement.

Picture-in-Picture (PIP) Second Media (A4):

Feature A4 in the Plaintiff's patent involves the incorporation of a Picture-in-Picture (PIP) second media. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's product mirrors this feature, presenting a compelling case for infringement. Establishing the presence or absence of this feature in the Defendant's product is crucial in resolving the dispute.

The Significance of Syncing of Audio, Video, and Image:

The Plaintiff emphasizes the importance of the syncing of audio, video, and image in both their product and the Defendant's product. They argue that this feature constitutes an essential element of their patented technology and is also present in the Defendant's product. The presence of this feature strengthens the Plaintiff's case against the Defendant.

The Relevance of the Call-to-Action (CTA) Button's Location:

The Defendant alleged the features described as A2, A3 and B5 are present, whereas the features A1, A4, C6 and C7 are stated to be absent. The Defendant further claims that the location of the Call-to-Action (CTA) button in their product sets it apart from the Plaintiff's patented technology. However, the Plaintiff counters this argument, asserting that the overall effect of the Defendant's product remains similar to the patented technology. This raises questions about the relevance of the CTA button's location in determining infringement.

Comparison of the 'Present and Record' Feature:

The Plaintiff contends that comparing the Defendant's 'Present and Record' feature with the Claims establishes a prima facie case of infringement. The similarities between the steps in both products bolster the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant.

Court's Decision and Injunction:

The court emphasized that the mere relocation or addition of a non-essential element, such as the CTA [Call to Action]] button, does not absolve the Accused from patent infringement. The Accused's product remained within the scope of the Patentee's patent claims as the core functionality of synchronizing audiovisual content was present in both products.

The essential elements of the Patentee's patent claim were the integration of the first and second media layers to achieve seamless audiovisual synchronization. Despite the Accused's attempts to differentiate their product through the placement of the CTA element, the court concluded that this addition did not alter the core functionality shared with the Patentee's invention.

The Court granted an injunction against the Defendant, ruling that their product contains essential features covered under the Plaintiff's patent. The Court's decision underscores the significance of the essential elements of a patent claim in a patent infringement case.In assessing infringement, courts look beyond superficial differences and focus on the core functionality of the patented invention. The defendant's attempt to distinguish their product by adding a non-essential element did not shield them from liability, as the integral features of the plaintiff's patent were present in the accused product.

The Concluding Note:

The court's ruling in this case highlights the critical role of essential elements in patent claims when evaluating potential infringement. An essential element in a patent claim refers to a feature or combination of features that, when absent, would fundamentally alter the nature of the claimed invention. In other words, these elements are vital to achieving the patented functionality. Ultimately, the Court's decision highlights the importance of essential elements in patent claims in determining infringement.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
9990389539

#IP_Adjutor #Trademark #Copyright #Design_infringement #Patent_infringement #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Iprupdate #Iprnews #Iprblog #Legalblog #law #legal
=====

Allied Blender Vs Ashok Kumar

Date of Judgement:13.07.2023
Case No.CS Comm 103 of 2022
Neutral Citation:2023:DHC:4877
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, H.J.
Case Title:Allied Blender Vs Ashok Kumar

THE RELEVANT OBSEVATION OF THE HON'BLE COURT WHILE DECREEING THE SUIT EX PARTE IN A SUIT OF JOHN DOE IN NATURE.

The Subject matter Suit was filed against unknown persons who were indulged in the infringement of Plaintiff's Trademark OFFICER'S CHOICE.

Since defendants were unknown, Suit was I। the nature of JOHN DOE.

After grant of ex parte order of Injunction, since the Defendant did not appear, they were proceeded against exparte .

The Hon'ble Court, Following the rationale of the judgment of a ld. Single of this Court in Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. v. Balraj Muttneja &Ors. [CS (OS) 3466/2022] observed that since the Defendants were proceeded ex parte, Plaintiff was not required to lead ex parte evidence.

According Suit was decreed ex parte.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
9990389539

#IP_Adjutor #Trademark #Copyright #Design_infringement #Patent_infringement #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Iprupdate #Iprnews #Iprblog #Legalblog #law #legal
===

Zenith Dance Institute Vs Zenith Dancing and Music

Date of Judgement:18.07.2023
Case No.CS Comm 161 of 2022
Neutral Citation:2023:DHC:4901
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Harishankar , H.J.
Case Title:Zenith Dance Institute Vs Zenith Dancing and Music

THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE COURT WHILE GRANTING THE INTERIM INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF:

The prominent and defining feature of both the plaintiff's and defendant's marks is the Zenith, which distinctly impresses itself upon the average customer's mind, even with imperfect recollection and intelligence. Despite potential differences in overall design and layout between the two marks, confusion cannot be ruled out.

It is essential for the Court to be aware that in today's commercial landscape, changing logos and pictorial representations of marks is a common practice, often used as a market strategy to introduce novelty. Marks that have been in use for extended periods and may have resulted in viewer fatigue are frequently modified or enhanced to generate interest through novelty.

Consequently, the pictorial characteristics of a logo or device mark in this case may hold limited significance. If the defining feature of both marks, such as their names, is the same or confusingly similar, visual distinctness between the marks may not carry much weight when determining infringement.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney

#IP_Adjutor #Trademark #Copyright #Design_infringement #Patent_infringement #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Iprupdate #Iprnews #Iprblog #Legalblog #law #legal

=====

Vasundhara Jewellers Vs Vasundhara Fashion

Date of Judgement:19.07.2023
Case No.CS Comm 161 of 2022
Neutral Citation:2023:DHC:4960
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge:Amit Bansal, H.J.
Case Title:Vasundhara Jewellers Pvt.Ltd. Vs Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP and Another 

Introduction 

A critical element in a passing off claim is the establishment of goodwill and reputation in the relevant market. This article examines a notable case in which the Hon'ble Court refused to grant an injunction due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate goodwill at the time the defendant entered the market.

Background:

The essential feature of Plaintiff's as well as Defendant's Trademark VASUNDHARA. The Plaintiff claimed user since 1999 while Defendant claimed since 2001. Both of the parties were registered proprietors=

The plaintiff filed a trademark application with the Trade Mark Registry in 1999 for jewelry in precious metals and gems. In June 2019, while reviewing the defendant no.1's 'VASUNDHARA' marks, cited in the Examination Report for the plaintiff's application, the plaintiff became aware of the defendant.

The crux of the dispute lies in the alleged deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's 'VASUNDHRA' and the defendant's 'VASUNDHARA.' The plaintiff, in their response to the Examination Report, asserted that their mark differed significantly from the defendant's, specifically highlighting the stylized form of the letter "V" used by the defendant, which they believed created enough distinction to avoid consumer confusion.

The Plaintiff's Contradictory Stance:

In the ongoing lawsuit, the plaintiff's position became questionable due to their contradicting statements. While they initially claimed that the defendant's mark was not deceptively similar to theirs, they later filed the subject matter suit asserting the opposite. This inconsistency weakened the plaintiff's right to seek injunction against the Defendants as a party can not be allowed to Aprobate and reprobate.

Defendant's User Claims and Factors Affecting Injunction:

The defendant no.1 claimed to have used the mark 'VASUNDHARA' since the year 2001, which, they contended, was subsequent to the plaintiff's use of 'VASUNDHRA.' This claim further complicated the matter and added complexity to the question of trademark infringement. The court considered various factors while deliberating on the grant of an injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

Registered Proprietorship and Passing Off Remedy:

Both the plaintiff and the defendant  held registered trademarks, which led the court to conclude that the relief of infringement could not be granted in favor of the plaintiff. Consequently, the case was analyzed with respect to the passing off remedy, wherein the plaintiff sought to establish their goodwill and reputation in the market.

Suspect Nature of Plaintiff's Invoices:

One critical aspect that came to light during the proceedings was the suspect nature of the plaintiff's invoices. The court noted that the plaintiff's invoice dated 17th August 2016 included Goods and Services Tax (GST), even though the GST was enacted only on 1st July 2017. This discrepancy raised doubts about the authenticity of the plaintiff's claims and further weakened their position.

Burden of Proof in Passing Off Action:

In an action of passing off, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of goodwill and reputation at the time the defendant entered the market. Since there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff had established goodwill in the year 2001 when the defendant began trading in jewelry under their name, the court had reservations about granting relief in favor of the plaintiff.

The Concluding Note:

In passing off action, the Relevant date for establishing good will , is the date when defendant enters into the market:The Court observed that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of goodwill in the relevant market at the time the defendant started trading. The absence of credible documentation,  or any other substantial proof to support the plaintiff's claim of goodwill in the year 2001 when defendant entered into the market, weighed against the plaintiff's case.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney

#IP_Adjutor #Trademark #Copyright #Design_infringement #Patent_infringement #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Iprupdate #Iprnews #Iprblog #Legalblog #law #legal
=====

Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ashok Kumar Conducting Activities through Webpage

Date of Judgment: 13.07.2023
Case No: CS Comm 103 of 2022
Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:4877
Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh.
Case Title: Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ashok Kumar Conducting Activities through Webpage

THE INTRODUCTION:

In the fast-paced digital age, the internet has provided countless opportunities for individuals and businesses to connect and share information globally. Unfortunately, this unrestricted access has also led to the rise of numerous illegal activities, including the infringement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

These violations often occur through anonymous and rogue websites, making it challenging for right holders to identify and take legal action against the perpetrators. However, a recent landmark judgment delivered by the court brought hope to countless right holders whose IPR had been infringed by unknown persons using various websites.

The court's decision not only protected their rights but also set a precedent for future cases involving John Doe defendants.

THE FACT:

The case at hand involved several unknown individuals who were engaged in activities that violated the Intellectual Property Rights of the Plaintiffs.

The identities of these wrongdoers remained hidden, making it difficult for the Plaintiffs to serve proper legal notice and initiate legal proceedings against them.

To overcome this obstacle, the Plaintiffs identified the unknown defendants collectively as "John Doe" and approached the court seeking redress for the infringement of their IPR through various websites.

THE EX PARTE ORDER OF INJUNCTION:

Recognizing the urgency and potential harm caused by the infringing activities, the court granted an ex parte injunction at the initial stages of the case. Ex parte means that the court issued the injunction without hearing the arguments of the defendants, as their identities were still unknown or they failed to appear in court. The court's decision to grant an ex parte injunction was based on the principle that swift action was necessary to prevent further damage to the Plaintiffs' IPR. This step was crucial in restraining the defendants from continuing their unlawful activities.

THE DEFENDANTS WERE PROCEEDED EX PARTE:

Since the Defendants did not appear, they were proceeded ex parte. Accordingly a decree of Permanent Injunction was granted against Defendants which were arrayed as John Doe as they were running impugned websites under hidden identity.

NO EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE LEAD IN EX PARTE MATTERS:

In its judgment, the court explicitly clarified that in ex parte matters, nol evidence from the Plaintiff was required to be presented to support their claims. The rationale behind this decision was to prevent further delays and to deter future wrongdoers from taking advantage of the ex parte process. The court held that when the identities of the defendants were concealed or they failed to participate in the proceedings, it would be unfair to burden the right holders with evidence requirements.

THE CONCLUDING NOTE:

By allowing ex parte proceedings and eschewing the need for  evidence in such cases, the court acknowledges the urgency and gravity of the situation. This approach empowers right holders to seek immediate relief and protects their interests without being hindered by the anonymity of the perpetrators. Swift action is crucial in preventing further damage and preserving the integrity of the intellectual property.

The judgment in this case represents a critical milestone in the legal battle against intellectual property infringement by unknown entities operating through rogue websites. By allowing Plaintiffs to proceed ex parte and granting a decree of Permanent Injunction against John Doe defendants, the court has demonstrated its commitment to protect the rights of IPR owners.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney


T.Sudhakar Pai Vs Manipal Academy of Higher Education

Date of Judgment: 17.07.2023
Case No: Commercial Appeal No. 404 of 2022
Neutral Citation No: NA
Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengalore 
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Alok Aradhe and Anant Ramnath Hegde, H.J.
Case Title: T.Sudhakar Pai Vs Manipal Academy of Higher Education

The Contemnors were in controller of management of the company.

Inspite of full control of management of company and inspite of aware of the injunction order, they have allowed francheeses to use the Trademark MANIPAL, for which injunction order was operating.

The contemnors wilfully violated the injunction order.

The Contemnors were held to be in breach of the injunction orders passed by the Hon'ble Court.

In view of the above, the Hon'ble Court held them guilty for contempt of Court under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.

Accordingly the Contemnor No.1 was Sent for civil prison for 15 days.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
9990389539

Monday, July 17, 2023

USCO S.P.A. Vs Twin Parts Pvt. Ltd.

Date of Judgment: 03.07.2023
Case No: IA No. GA 1 of 2023 in CS No.87 of 2023
Neutral Citation No: N.A.
Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Arindam Mukherjee, H.J.
Case Title: USCO S.P.A. Vs Twin Parts Pvt. Ltd.

THE INTRODUCTION:

When relation ship of distributor or dealer is terminated with a trademark owner, question may arise regarding the use of that trademark or any other trademark deceptively similar thereto ,by the former dealer or distributor. This article deals with this issue  in view of recent Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta.

This article delves into this critical issue in light of a recent landmark judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. We will explore the implications of the judgment and its impact on trademark rights and infringement concerns for all parties involved.

THE SUIT:

The Plaintiff filed suit for Trademark Infringement and Passing off against the Defendants.

THE BASIC FACTS OF PLAINTIFF:

Plaintiff is manufacturer and distributor of spare parts for Earth Moving Machines etc. Plaintiff was incorporated since the year 1989. Plaintiff was registered Proprietor of Trademark ITR and USCO. Suit was filed by the Plaintiff as the Defendants have also been using the Trademark IITR and/or ITR.

THE DEFENDANT WAS EX DISTRIBUTOR OF PLAINTIFF:

Another important aspect of the matter is that the Defendants have also been ex dealer of the Plaintiff. This also one of the important factor, leading to filing of the subject matter Suit.

THE ORDER:

The Court granted injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants,

THE REASONS:

In the Court's observation, it was noted that the plaintiffs presented documents proving that plaintiff No.1 was incorporated in 1989 and had been selling its products in India since at least 2007.

Furthermore, the mark "ITR" of the Plaintiff has been a registered mark under class 7 (device) of the 1999 Act since 2009, following the application for registration made in 2007. The general public, when purchasing the plaintiffs' goods, associates them with the trademark "ITR" and intends to buy goods originating from Plaintiff Company.

On the contrary, the defendants used to be either dealers or distributors of the plaintiffs' goods until 2017. A simple comparison between the registered mark "ITR" and the defendant's "IITR" reveals a clear deceptive similarity. The Defendants , initially applied for Trademark IITR , which shows that intention of Defendants is not bonafide.

The combination of the logo, font, and color used in "IITR" is highly likely to cause confusion among customers seeking goods with the "ITR" mark, which is associated with products originating from Plaintiff Company. The defendants were fully aware that the plaintiffs' goods were sold with the "ITR" mark and identified as products of USCO Company.

Given that the defendants were ex-dealer or ex-distributor, it can be assumed that they had knowledge of the plaintiff's trademark. These factors led the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta to grant an injunction order in favor of the plaintiff.

THE CONCLUDING NOTE:

Post-termination trademark use, ex-distributors must be aware of their rights and limitations to avoid infringing upon the trademark owner's exclusive rights. If an ex-distributor continues to use the trademark without proper authorization, it could risk infringing upon the trademark owner's rights. The trademark owner will have legal remedies available, such as filing a lawsuit for trademark infringement, seeking injunctive relief, and claiming damages resulting from unauthorized use.

This recent judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta serves as a significant milestone in the realm of trademark law and its application in cases of distributor or dealer relationship termination. It reinforces the importance of trademark owners' rights and the need to protect their intellectual property from unauthorized use. The judgment also emphasizes the significance of consumer trust and confidence in upholding the distinctiveness of trademarks and preventing confusion in the marketplace.

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
9990389539

Sunday, July 16, 2023

Yashoda Thakore Vs Kuchipudi Dance Centre

Date of Judgment: 12.07.2023
Case No: CM (M)-IPD 10 of 2023
Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:4787
Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, H.J.
Case Title:Yashoda Thakore Vs Kuchipudi Dance Centre

INTRODUCTION

At first glance, some may assume that the Explanation to Section 6 of the Commercial Court Act 2015 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 are in conflict.

However, upon closer examination of their respective language and legislative intent, it becomes apparent that they can coexist harmoniously. This article seeks to elucidate the interplay between Explanation to Section 6 of the Commercial Court Act 2015 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957.

While there may be confusion regarding their applicability, this article argues that these provisions are not in negation of each other. Rather, Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 complements the Explanation to Section 6 of the Commercial Court Act 2015 and provides an additional forum for invoking territorial jurisdiction of a commercial court.

The article explores the legislative intent behind these provisions, analyzes relevant case law, and highlights the significance of having two parallel avenues to assert territorial jurisdiction in copyright-related commercial disputes, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case discussed herein below:

THE REVISION PETITION:

The Petition was filed by the Petitioner/Defendant against the Order of Ld. Trial Court where by Application of the Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC seeking return of Suit on the ground of lacking Territorial Jurisdiction was rejected. There by the Ld. Trial Court refused to return the Suit on the ground of lacking Territorial Jurisdiction.

THE REASONING OF LD.TRIAL COURT BELOW:

The Ld. Trial Court held the Territorial Jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 on the premise of Plaintiff's averment made in Para No. 30 of the Plaint regarding Plaintiff's activity.

THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONER:

The Petitioner alleged that the Order of Ld. Trial Court was based on ULTRA HOME Judgment, which according to the Petitioner, per incuriam as it is contrary to Explanation to Section 6 of Commercial Court Act 2015.

THE JUDGEMENT:

Revision Petition was dismissed.

THE REASONING:

Ultra Home Construction clearly held that Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 provides additional forum for invoking Jurisdiction, in addition to Section 20 CPC.

In view of the above, explanation to Section 6 of Commercial Court Act 2015 does not limit the right of Plaintiff to invoke jurisdiction by virtue of Section 62 of Copyright Act 1957.

THE CONCLUDING NOTE:

Explanation to Section 6 of the Commercial Court Act 2015 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 are not in negation to each other. The Commercial Court Act 2015 does not override the special provisions of the Copyright Act 1957.
Instead, Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 serves as an additional forum for copyright owners to invoke territorial jurisdiction of a commercial court. This dual approach ensures that copyright-related commercial disputes have the option to be heard before specialized commercial courts while preserving copyright holders' right to choose alternative forums.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
9990389539

DISCLAIMER

Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.

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