Pankaj Rajiv Bhai Patel trading as Rakesh Pharmaceuticals Vs SSS Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.

The Twin Requirement of Commercial Dispute

Introduction:

The Hon'ble Division Bench, High Court of Delhi recently grappled with an important issue related to the valuation and classification of commercial disputes. In the case of Vishal Pipes Limited Vs. Bhavya Pipe Industry, the Hon'ble Single Judge had the opportunity to review the directives issued by a Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1730. This article examines the critical issues discussed in this judgment, focusing on the twin requirements of commercial disputes and specified value as laid down by the Commercial Court Act 2015 and the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Acts.

Background:

The Hon'ble Single Judge's directive in Vishal Pipes Limited Vs. Bhavya Pipe Industry emphasized that intellectual property rights (IPR) cases should typically be valued at Rs. 3 lakhs or more, with court fees paid accordingly. The directive further indicated that even if the commercial court were valued below Rs. 3 lakhs, it would be tried before Coomercial Court even if provision of Commercial Court Act 2015 would not apply. The Hon'ble Division Bench, however, did not concur with the directions contained in Paragraph 66 (iv) and (v) of the Vishal Pipes case.

The Twin Requirement: Commercial Dispute and Specified Value

"The Hon'ble Division Bench's decision in this matter underscores the importance of satisfying two essential conditions for a dispute to be tried by a commercial court: the presence of a commercial dispute and the specific valuation. It found that it would be erroneous to assume that all IPR-related cases would inherently warrant a valuation of Rs. 3 lakhs or more." This distinction is crucial in determining whether a case should be heard in a commercial court.

First, the requirement of a commercial dispute is paramount. A dispute qualifies as a commercial dispute when it involves matters that are inherently commercial in nature as defined in Commercial Court Act 2015. The Commercial Court Act 2015 was enacted to provide a specialized forum for the resolution of such disputes, promoting expeditious and efficient adjudication.

Second, the specified value is equally significant. The specified value refers to the monetary threshold above which a case falls under the jurisdiction of a commercial court. In the context of IPR cases, this valuation must not be presumed to be automatically above Rs. 3 lakhs. The valuation of Suit must be above 3 Lakhs in order to be tried by a Commercial Court.

Legal Framework:

The Commercial Court Act 2015 was enacted to streamline and expedite the adjudication of commercial disputes. Section 12 of the Act is particularly relevant in this context. It emphasizes the need to respect the principles enshrined in the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Acts. This provision ensures that the valuation of cases aligns with established legal norms, preventing the creation of commercial court jurisdiction contrary to the statutory criteria laid down by the Commercial Court Act 2015.

The Diversion of Matters: A Distorted Scenario

The Hon'ble Division Bench in its judgment contended that the directives formulated in Vishal Pipes and embodied in Paragraph 66 (iv) and (v) of the case have the potential to distort the distribution of cases between commercial and non-commercial courts. If these directions were upheld, they could lead to the conferment of jurisdiction on commercial courts contrary to the qualifying criteria mandated by the Commercial Court Act 2015.

The Concluding Note:

This Hon'ble Division Bench's judgment serves as a significant reminder of the importance of adhering to the twin requirements of commercial disputes and specified value for cases to be tried by commercial courts. It underscores the necessity of assessing each case individually, rather than imposing a uniform valuation threshold for IPR cases. Moreover, it reinforces the need to respect the legal framework provided by the Commercial Court Act 2015, preventing any distortion of jurisdictional boundaries between commercial and non-commercial courts.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:02/11/2023

Case No.FAO (COMM) 98/2023

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:7925-DB

Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma

Case Title: Pankaj Rajiv Bhai Patel trading as Rakesh Pharmaceuticals Vs SSS Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer:

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

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs John Doe

Service of Summons of Suits through Email and Mobile

Introduction:

The advent of the digital age has revolutionized various aspects of human life, including the way legal procedures are conducted. One such significant development is the service of summons through email and mobile numbers, as exemplified by the case of the Plaintiff seeking to enforce their rights in the mark 'DREAM 11.' In this analytical legal article, we delve into the intricacies of this case and discuss the legal implications of serving summons and notices through email and mobile numbers.

The 'DREAM 11' Case:

The Plaintiff in this case sought to protect their rights in the mark 'DREAM 11,' claiming that it was a well-known fantasy sports platform launched in 2012. To safeguard their rights, the Plaintiff approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 26th May 2023.

However, the Defendants in this case were operating in a clandestine manner, making it difficult to effect the service of summons. Traditional methods of serving summons, such as personal delivery or through postal services, were rendered ineffective due to the elusive nature of the Defendants' identities.

The Role of Email and Mobile Numbers:

In a remarkable development, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi permitted the Plaintiff to serve the summons and notices on the email address and mobile number associated with the impugned domain names of the Defendants. This decision highlights the court's recognition of the need to adapt to the digital age and utilize modern communication channels for effective legal procedures.

The court's decision to allow service through email and mobile numbers is not only a pragmatic approach but also a step towards ensuring that justice is not hampered by technological challenges. This decision is of paramount importance, as it enables access to justice, especially in cases where Defendants choose to operate in anonymity, often exploiting the veils of domain names for infringing activities.

Legal Implications:

Accessibility and Convenience:

The court's decision recognizes the practicality of serving summons through email and mobile numbers. This approach facilitates access to justice for Plaintiffs and ensures that legal proceedings are not impeded by the evasive tactics of Defendants.

Technological Challenges:

While the use of email and mobile numbers for serving summons is progressive, it raises questions about technological accessibility and validity. Courts must ensure that the chosen means of communication are reliable, and they should provide clear guidelines on how to serve summons via these digital channels.

Privacy and Data Protection:

Serving summons through email and mobile numbers necessitates attention to privacy and data protection concerns. Courts must establish mechanisms to protect the personal information of both parties involved in the legal proceedings, ensuring that sensitive data is handled securely.

Evidentiary Considerations:

The admissibility of evidence related to service through email and mobile numbers may require legal scrutiny. The court should establish a framework to authenticate the delivery and receipt of summons and notices, ensuring that the process is transparent and verifiable.

Compliance with International Standards:

The use of email and mobile numbers for serving summons may involve cross-border implications, particularly when Defendants are located in different jurisdictions. Courts should consider international standards and agreements for service of legal documents to ensure that the procedure is legally sound.

The Concluding Note:

The 'DREAM 11' case and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision to permit the service of summons and notices through email and mobile numbers exemplify the legal system's ability to adapt to the challenges posed by the digital age. This decision highlights the importance of accessibility, practicality, and efficiency in legal proceedings while raising questions about technological challenges, privacy, and evidentiary considerations.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve in the digital era, courts and legal practitioners must establish clear guidelines and procedures for serving summons and notices through email and mobile numbers, ensuring that justice remains accessible and that due process is upheld. The 'DREAM 11' case serves as a compelling example of how the law can adapt to modern technological advancements, ultimately enhancing the administration of justice.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:30/10/2023

Case No.CS(COMM) 351/2023

Neutral Citation No: N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh

Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs John Doe

Disclaimer:

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

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Assets Care Reconstruction Vs The State of Maharashtra

The Dichotomy of Alternate Remedies and Interim Relief in High Court Admissions

Introduction:

The interplay between the admission of a matter before a High Court and the subsequent grant or refusal of interim relief is a complex and often contentious issue in the legal world. In many cases, the High Court may admit a matter based on its perceived merit, only to subsequently deny interim relief on the grounds of the availability of an alternate remedy. This situation raises questions about the consistency and logic of such decisions. This article delves into the legal intricacies surrounding this dichotomy, examining the principles underlying the admission of a matter, the considerations for interim relief, and the implications of non-granting interim relief when alternate remedies exist.

Admission of a Matter and its Significance:

When a High Court admits a matter, it signifies that the court has found merit in the case and believes it warrants further consideration. The admission stage involves a preliminary examination of the facts and legal arguments presented, and the court's determination to admit the matter reflects its acknowledgment that the issues raised are substantial and deserve a full hearing. The admission of a matter, in essence, is a judicial recognition of the prima facie merit in the case.

Interim Relief and its Necessity:

Interim relief, in the form of injunctions, stay orders, or other remedies, plays a crucial role in ensuring that parties to a legal dispute are not unduly prejudiced while their matter is pending before the court. It is a discretionary power of the court, exercised with great care and caution, to prevent irreparable harm or injustice. The primary consideration for granting interim relief is whether the applicant has a strong prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience tilts in their favor. The court also takes into account the question of irreparable injury that the applicant might suffer if interim relief is not granted.

The Conundrum of Alternate Remedies:

One of the contentious issues arises when the High Court, having admitted a matter based on its perceived merit, subsequently denies interim relief on the grounds of the availability of an alternate remedy. The principle of alternate remedies implies that if there is an existing legal avenue through which the petitioner can obtain relief, the court may refrain from granting interim relief. This principle is rooted in the idea that the court should not unnecessarily interfere with established legal processes.

Inconsistency and Contradiction:

The crux of the issue lies in the apparent inconsistency between admitting a matter and then denying interim relief due to the existence of an alternate remedy. This contradiction raises several questions:

1. Merit-Based Admission:

"If the High Court admits a matter based on its merit, it implies that the court believes the petitioner has a strong case. In such cases, denying interim relief due to the existence of an alternate remedy appears to be at odds with the court's initial assessment of the case's strength."

2. The Purpose of Interim Relief:

The purpose of interim relief is to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain the status quo pending a final decision. Denying interim relief based on the availability of alternate remedies may defeat this purpose if the alternate remedy is not as effective or expeditious.

3. Dual Judicial Assessment:

The contradiction implies a dual assessment of the matter—one at the admission stage and another at the interim relief stage. This duplication of effort raises questions about the efficiency and consistency of the judicial process.

The Concluding Note:

The dichotomy between admitting a matter and subsequently denying interim relief due to the existence of alternate remedies presents a complex legal issue. It challenges the consistency and logic of the judicial process, as it may appear inconsistent to admit a matter on its merit but then deny interim relief. The principle of alternate remedies should be applied judiciously, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:16/10/2023

Case No.SLP(C) No.9913/2022

Neutral Citation No: N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

Name of Hon'ble Judge: B.R.Gavai Vs Prashant Kumar Mishra

Case Title: Assets Care Reconstruction Vs The State of Maharashtra

Disclaimer:

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

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Chirec Public School vs Shri Shakti Schools Pvt. Ltd.

The Interplay Between Section 124 of the Trademarks Act 1999 and Stay of Suit Proceedings: 

Introduction:

The filing of a rectification petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in response to a trademark infringement suit is not an uncommon occurrence in the realm of intellectual property disputes. The Trademarks Act 1999 of India provides a legal framework for such proceedings, including the provision of Section 124, which allows defendants to seek a stay of the suit proceedings pending the outcome of the rectification petition. However, the recent decision by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Telangana High Court, which rejected the defendant's request for a stay, has brought to light the complexities and nuances of this provision and its application.

Section 124 of the Trademarks Act 1999:

Section 124 of the Trademarks Act 1999 is a pivotal provision that grants the defendant the right to apply for a stay of the suit proceeding when a rectification petition is filed before the IPAB. This provision recognizes the potential for disputes over the validity of registered trademarks and seeks to strike a balance between the interests of the plaintiff and defendant. It allows the defendant to halt the Suiy proceedings temporarily, awaiting a decision by the IPAB on the rectification petition, which may question the validity of the plaintiff's registered trademark.

The Recent Challenge:

In this recent case under discussion, the defendant exercised their right under Section 124 to apply for a stay of the suit proceedings. However, their application was rejected, and the matter was brought before the Hon'ble Division Bench of Telangana High Court for review. The crux of the challenge lay in the Division Bench's analysis of whether the defendant had prima facie satisfied that the registered trademark of the plaintiff was invalid.

The Division Bench's Decision:

The Hon'ble Division Bench's decision was predicated on a meticulous examination of the contents of the defendant's written statement. Their primary conclusion was that the defendant had failed to prima facie establish that the plaintiff's registered trademark was invalid. This assessment was pivotal in their rejection of the stay application.

Analysis and Implications:

The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench raises important questions and offers valuable insights into the interpretation and application of Section 124 of the Trademarks Act 1999. "Firstly, it underscores the significance of the defendant's burden of establishing a prima facie case for the invalidity of the plaintiff's trademark."

Moreover, the decision reaffirms the principle that a stay of suit proceedings is not to be granted automatically merely because a rectification petition has been filed. The courts are tasked with ensuring that the defendant's claim of trademark invalidity is credible and compelling enough to warrant a stay.

The Concluding Note:

The recent decision by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Telangana High Court  provides a nuanced understanding of the interplay between Section 124 of the Trademarks Act 1999 and the stay of suit proceedings. It emphasizes the importance of a defendant's burden to establish a prima facie case for trademark invalidity and reinforces the principle that such stays are not to be granted as a matter of routine. 

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:30/10/2023

Case No.Civil Revision Petition

Neutral Citation No: N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Telangana

Name of Hon'ble JudgeChief Justice Alok Aradhe and Shravan Kumar.

Case Title:  Chirec Public School vs Shri Shakti Schools Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer:

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

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, 

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Zydus Healthcare Limited Vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd & Ors

Dealing with Unidentified Counterfeiters on E-Marketing Platforms

Introduction:

The rise of e-commerce has revolutionized the world of marketing, offering businesses a global reach and convenience for consumers. However, this digital landscape has also given rise to a significant challenge for rights holders - the sale of counterfeit products by anonymous sellers on e-marketing platforms. The identification of these counterfeiters can be challenging, as they do not have a physical presence. In response to this issue, various High Courts have taken measures to combat counterfeiting on e-marketing platforms. This article explores a recent order from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and its potential implications for right holders in the fight against counterfeiters.

The Case: Counterfeiting of CUTICOLOR Products:

The case in question revolves around the sale of counterfeit "CUTICOLOR" products on e-marketing platforms. The plaintiff, a leading Indian Pharmaceutical Company, claimed to have coined and adopted the mark "CUTICOLOR" in July 2016 for pharmaceutical preparations and cosmetic products. Furthermore, the plaintiff held a registered trademark for "CUTICOLOR" in class 5, effective from November 12, 2017. The plaintiff initiated legal proceedings as they were aggrieved by the sale of counterfeit products bearing the mark "CUTICOLOR" on the platform of Defendant.

The plaintiff's case was based on the fact that unknown defendants, who concealed their identities as fake sellers, were selling counterfeit hair color products with the same "CUTICOLOR" mark. These counterfeit products were packaged to mimic the plaintiff's legitimate products.

Interim Measures by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:

In response to the plaintiff's grievances, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi issued a series of interim measures to address the issue of counterfeiting on e-marketing platforms. These measures aim to empower right holders to combat counterfeiters effectively:

Take Down of Infringing Listings:

The court ordered the immediate removal of all infringing listings of counterfeit products from the e-marketing platform. This step prevents the sale of counterfeit goods to unsuspecting consumers.

Preventing Future Counterfeiting Listings:

In addition to taking down existing infringing listings, the court directed the e-marketing platform to promptly remove any future listings of counterfeit products when notified by the plaintiff. This proactive measure helps in preventing further counterfeit sales.

Disclosure of Seller Information:

"One of the most significant aspects of this order is the requirement for the e-marketing platform to provide the plaintiff with the identities and contact information of the persons who have posted counterfeit listings. This includes names, addresses, phone numbers, email IDs, GST, PAN, and bank account details. This information is crucial for tracking down and pursuing legal action against the counterfeiters."

Implications and Significance:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's interim measures in this case are significant for several reasons. They provide right holders with a practical mechanism to combat counterfeiting on e-marketing platforms:

Effective Deterrence:

The immediate take down of infringing listings and the threat of revealing counterfeiters' identities act as a powerful deterrent against counterfeiting. Sellers engaged in such activities may think twice before continuing.

Preventative Measures:

The court's order also addresses the need for proactive measures. By allowing the plaintiff to report and request the removal of future counterfeit listings, the court acknowledges the continuous nature of this problem and provides a means to tackle it promptly.

Disclosure of Identities:

The most groundbreaking aspect of this order is the requirement for the e-marketing platform to disclose the identities of counterfeit sellers. This information enables right holders to take legal action against the counterfeiters, thereby offering a more robust mechanism for enforcement.

The concluding Note:

The fight against unidentified counterfeiters on e-marketing platforms is an ongoing challenge for right holders. The recent order from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the CUTICOLOR case represents a significant development in addressing this issue. By combining immediate take down measures, proactive prevention of future listings, and the disclosure of seller identities, this order equips right holders with a more effective arsenal to combat counterfeiting in the digital realm.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:27/09/2023

Case No. CS (COMM) 674/2021

Neutral Citation No: N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge:C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Case Title: Zydus Healthcare Limited Vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd & Ors

Disclaimer:

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

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Cable News Network Inc Vs Ctvn Calcutta Television Network Pvt. Ltd.

Carry on business under Section 20 (b) CPC and Cause of Action under Section 20 (c) CPC in the context of defendant's activity through web site

Background:

In a recent case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the provisions of Section 20 (b) and Section 20 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) were examined in the context of online activities carried out by the defendant through a website. The court's ruling shed light on the distinct treatment of online activities concerning the "carry on business" clause of Section 20 (b) CPC and the "cause of action" provision under Section 20 (c) CPC.

Background of the Case:

The case revolved around a plaintiff who had been established in 1980 for the purpose of operating a news channel in English under the renowned brand CNN, complete with the distinctive CNN logo. The defendant, located in Calcutta, was also involved in the operation of a news channel and had adopted and commenced using a CN Logo that, according to the plaintiff, infringed upon their trademark rights associated with the CNN Logo. Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on the grounds of trademark infringement.

One of the central questions that arose in this case was whether the defendant's online services, accessible in Delhi through their website, satisfied the requirements of Section 20 (c) CPC or Section 20 (b) CPC. Section 20 (c) CPC deals with the jurisdiction of the court in cases where a part of the cause of action has arisen. Section 20 (b) CPC, on the other hand, pertains to the jurisdiction of the court when the defendant carries on business within its territorial limits.

Distinct Treatment of Section 20 (c) and Section 20 (b) CPC:

The court, in its ruling, emphasized a crucial distinction between online activities in the context of Section 20 (b) CPC and Section 20 (c) CPC.

1. Cause of Action under Section 20 (c) CPC:

The court made it clear that "mere accessibility of a website, without the possibility of concluding a commercial transaction through it, does not constitute part of the cause of action within the meaning of Section 20 (c) CPC."

In other words, the mere fact that a website can be accessed in a particular jurisdiction is insufficient to establish that a part of the cause of action has arisen in that jurisdiction.

This interpretation aligns with the principle that a cause of action is typically related to the specific events or circumstances that give rise to a lawsuit. In the context of online activities, the mere availability of a website to users in a particular jurisdiction is not, in itself, indicative of the cause of action originating in that jurisdiction.

A plaintiff must demonstrate that the essential elements of the cause of action, such as trademark infringement in this case, have occurred within the territorial limits of the court's jurisdiction and for this commercial transaction has to happen through the defendants' website , which was missing in this case.

2. Carry on Business under Section 20 (b) CPC:

In contrast, the court observed that Section 20 (b) of the CPC would be applicable to the case. This is because the defendant, in addition to their website, also conducted business through various online channels, including a Facebook page, Instagram page, Twitter account, and YouTube channel. These channels were accessible to consumers in Delhi and, through these channels, the defendant was deemed to be carrying on business within the meaning of Section 20 (b) CPC.

The court's rationale for this differentiation was that "when a defendant operates through multiple online platforms and engages with consumers in a particular jurisdiction, they can be considered as carrying on business in that jurisdiction. This is because such online presence, when aimed at attracting and interacting with consumers, can be seen as actively participating in the commercial activities of that region."

The Concluding Note:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's ruling in this case provides essential guidance on the interpretation of the terms "carry on business" under Section 20 (b) CPC and "cause of action" under Section 20 (c) CPC in the context of online activities conducted through a website. The ruling emphasizes that the mere accessibility of a website, sans any commercial activity, does not establish a part of the cause of action, and the actual business operations conducted through various online channels determine the applicability of Section 20 (b) CPC.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:28/04/2023

Case No. CS (COMM) 309/2021

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:2862

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge:C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Case Title: Cable News Network Inc Vs Ctvn Calcutta Television Network Pvt. Ltd.:

Disclaimer:

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

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vikram Suri

Introduction:

The case in question revolves around a crucial legal matter: whether service can be effectively conducted via email in a trademark opposition proceeding. Trademark opposition proceedings are integral for protecting intellectual property rights, and determining the validity of service through email has significant implications for the trademark litigation process. In this case, the Appellant did not provide an email address when specifying the address for service. Despite this, service was carried out via email, leading to an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's Verdict:

The crux of this case lay in whether email service was legally recognized and permissible in trademark opposition proceedings when a party did not supply their email address for service. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi provided a nuanced response to this question.

The court opined that email service does not constitute valid service in trademark opposition proceedings, but only in cases where parties have not provided their email addresses, as was the situation in the present case. This verdict upholds the principle that service methods must align with the information provided by the parties involved. In the absence of an email address, traditional modes of service should be employed. While observing so , the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi stated that In view of the express wordings of Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act, the Registry would be duty-bound to effect service only at such address, and effecting service or any other address would not be service at all. 

However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi went a step further by clarifying that when parties do provide their email addresses for service, email service cannot be employed in trademark opposition proceedings. This clarification stems from the fundamental notion that when parties provide their email addresses, they expect service through the means they have specified, rather than alternative methods. This affirms the importance of respecting the parties' choices in communication.

Analysis

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's ruling can be dissected into several crucial components:

1. Alignment with Parties' Information: The verdict underscores the importance of aligning service methods with the information provided by the parties. In cases where email addresses are not disclosed, the court permits email service as an alternative. This ensures that parties are served according to the details they have provided, upholding fairness and procedural accuracy.

2. Respect for Parties' Choices: The court's clarification that email service is impermissible when parties do provide email addresses is pivotal. It respects the autonomy of the parties in deciding how they wish to be served, and this principle is consistent with the broader notion of due process in legal proceedings.

3. Technological Advancements and Legal Frameworks: This case highlights the ongoing adaptation of legal procedures to the advancements in technology. Email has become a prevalent means of communication, and the court's decision acknowledges this while ensuring that established legal norms are not compromised.

The Concluding Note:

The case surrounding service through email in trademark opposition proceedings raises essential questions about the integration of technology into the legal system. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's verdict strikes a balance between leveraging technological tools for efficiency and safeguarding the parties' rights and choices. It underscores the need to adapt legal procedures to the digital age while maintaining due process and adherence to established norms.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:13/10/2023

Case No. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2022 

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:7588

Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge:C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Case Title: Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vikram Suri 

Disclaimer:

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

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, 

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, 

Mob No: 9990389539