Body Cupid Pvt. Ltd. Vs MS VBRO Skincare Pvt. Ltd.

Res Ipsa Loquitur in Trademark Infringement

Abstract:

This legal article delves into the intricacies of a trademark infringement case, specifically focusing on the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The case under consideration involves the Plaintiff, a prominent player in the toiletries industry using the trademark 'WOW,' and the Defendants accused of copying not only the mark but also the entire trade dress, get-up, and other distinctive elements associated with the Plaintiff's products. The Hon'ble Court, recognizing the apparent imitation, granted an injunction in favor of the Plaintiff. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, exploring the principles of res ipsa loquitur and their application in the context of trademark law.

Introduction:

The Plaintiff in this case has been utilizing the trademark 'WOW' for toiletries and a diverse range of products, including supplements, herbal blends, creams, serums, lotions, shampoos, bath & body products, and essential oils since 2014. The legal dispute arose when the Plaintiff discovered the Defendants marketing their hair care products under the marks 'VBRO' and 'WQVV' on various e-commerce platforms. The crux of the Plaintiff's grievance lies in the alleged extensive imitation of not only the trademarks but also the entire trade dress, get-up, and writing style associated with the 'WOW' products.

Res Ipsa Loquitur: Unveiling the Doctrine in Trademark Infringement:

The Latin maxim "res ipsa loquitur" translates to "the thing speaks for itself." In legal terms, it is a doctrine often applied in negligence cases, where the very occurrence of an event implies negligence. In the realm of trademark law, res ipsa loquitur is invoked when the imitation is so blatant and evident that it requires no further explanation. The doctrine allows the court to infer wrongful intent based on the conspicuous similarity between the products or their packaging.

The Plaintiff's Allegations and Court's Observations:

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have not only copied the 'WOW' trademarks but have also replicated the entire trade dress, get-up, lay out, color combination, and writing style associated with the Plaintiff's products. The Hon'ble Court, in granting the injunction, explicitly noted that the case is one of res ipsa loquitur, where the imitation is unmistakably clear. The containers and products offered by the Defendants were deemed almost complete imitations of the Plaintiff's products.

Establishing Infringement Through Res Ipsa Loquitur:

For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply in trademark infringement, the similarities between the Plaintiff's and Defendants' products must be so striking that it raises a presumption of intentional copying. The court, in this case, acknowledged the apparent likeness in trade dress, get-up, and color combination, reinforcing the idea that the imitation was so evident that no further evidence of intent was required.

Implications and Precedent:

The decision in WOW Toiletries v. VBRO-WQVV sets a precedent for cases involving blatant trademark infringement. The application of res ipsa loquitur in the realm of trade dress and product imitation serves as a powerful tool for protecting the rights of trademark owners. The ruling emphasizes that when the evidence of copying is so apparent, the court may rely on the doctrine to expedite the resolution of trademark disputes.

The Concluding Note:

The case under discussion highlights the potency of res ipsa loquitur in trademark infringement cases, particularly when the imitation is glaringly evident. The court's decision to grant an injunction in favor of the Plaintiff reinforces the significance of protecting the distinctive elements associated with a trademark.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Body Cupid Pvt. Ltd. Vs MS VBRO Skincare Pvt. Ltd. and Ors

Date of Judgement/Order:13.12.2023

Case No. CS Comm 883 of 2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC;8969

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M SIngh HJ

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are 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,

Ph No: 9990389539

Berger Paints India Limited Vs JSW Paints Private Limited

The Use of a Mark in a Non-Trademark Sense

Abstract:

This legal article examines a case where the Plaintiff, claiming to be the registered proprietor of the trademark "SILK" since 1980 in relation to paints and related products, sought legal redress against the Defendant's use of the term "SILK" in conjunction with the trademark "HALO." The central question addressed by the court was whether the Defendant's use of "SILK" amounted to a violation of the Plaintiff's trademark rights.

Introduction:

The case at hand involves a dispute between a Plaintiff, associated with the trademark "BERGER" and "SILK," and a Defendant utilizing the term "SILK" in conjunction with the trademark "HALO." The Plaintiff asserted ownership of the "SILK" trademark dating back to 1980, specifically in connection with paints and allied products. On the other hand, the Defendant argued that its use of "SILK" was merely descriptive of the finish or sheen of the paint sold under the mark "HALO," and it had not sought separate registration for the term.

Defendant's Position:

The Defendant contended that its products were marketed under the well-established mark "HALO," with "SILK" serving as one of several descriptive terms indicating the finish or sheen of the paint. The Defendant emphasized that "SILK" was used alongside other terms like matt, satin, and gloss, all falling under the umbrella of the "HALO" mark. Crucially, the Defendant asserted that it had not applied for a standalone registration of the term "SILK."

Court's Analysis:

The court, in its analysis, considered the distinctiveness and similarity between the Plaintiff's and Defendant's marks. It was observed that the Plaintiff's use of "SILK" was in conjunction with the "BERGER" mark, while the Defendant's use was in association with the "HALO" mark. The court highlighted the absence of actual similarity between the marks "SILK" of both parties, considering the entirety of the trademarks used by each.

The court acknowledged the Defendant's argument that "SILK" was utilized to describe a specific attribute of its paint finish under the "HALO" mark. The fact that the Defendant had not sought separate registration for "SILK" was a key factor considered by the court.

The concluding Note:

Ultimately, the court refused to grant an injunction in favor of the Plaintiff. The decision hinged on the court's finding that the trademarks of the Plaintiff and Defendant were entirely different, and there was no substantial similarity between their respective uses of the term "SILK." The court's recognition of the descriptive nature of "SILK" in the Defendant's context, along with the absence of a standalone registration, played a pivotal role in shaping this decision.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Berger Paints India Limited Vs JSW Paints Private Limited

Date of Judgement/Order:12.12.2023

Case No. CS 64 of 2020

Neutral Citation No:N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Calcutta High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Krishna Rao HJ

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are 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,

Ph No: 9990389539

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust Vs Guru Nanak International

Relief pertaining multiple trademark in one Suit

Introduction:

In a recent legal development, a significant trademark infringement case emerged wherein the plaintiff asserted trademark rights against a range of well-known brands, including 'Calvin Klein', 'CK', 'TOMMY HILFIGER', 'TOMMY', 'TOMMY SPORT', and 'TOMMY GIRL'.

This case is notable for being the single suit in which multiple trademark rights were simultaneously asserted against various distinctive marks. The outcome of the case was a decree in favor of the plaintiff, as the defendant failed to appear. Additionally, the court, relying on the Local Commissioner's report, issued a decree that included damages amounting to Rs. 10 Lakhs.

Case Analysis:

1. Assertion of Trademark Rights:

The plaintiff's decision to assert trademark rights against a range of marks demonstrates the importance of protecting the distinctiveness and reputation associated with their brand. The inclusion of iconic brands like 'Calvin Klein' and 'TOMMY HILFIGER' suggests a comprehensive effort to safeguard against potential dilution and consumer confusion.

2. Default Judgment:

The defendant's failure to appear in court resulted in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. In legal proceedings, when a party fails to respond or defend against the claims, the court may issue a default judgment. This emphasizes the significance of timely legal representation and defense in intellectual property cases.

3. Local Commissioner's Report:

The court relied on the report submitted by the Local Commissioner, indicating the importance of evidence and investigative procedures in trademark infringement cases. The report likely played a crucial role in establishing the plaintiff's case and supporting the decree.

4. Decree of Damages:

The court's decision to award damages amounting to Rs. 10 Lakhs reflects the severity of the infringement and its impact on the plaintiff's business. Damages in trademark cases are typically awarded to compensate the aggrieved party for financial losses incurred due to the unauthorized use of their mark.

The concluding Note:

This trademark infringement case stands out not only for the assertion of rights against multiple well-known trademarks in one suit but also for the default judgment and the consequential damages awarded. The legal analysis underscores the importance of legal diligence, evidence gathering, and the potential financial repercussions for infringing on established trademark rights.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Calvin Klein Trademark Trust Vs Guru Nanak International

Date of Judgement/Order:08.12.2023

Case No. CS Comm 75 of 2020

Neutral Citation No:2023: DHC: 8868

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh HJ

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are 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,

Ph No: 9990389539

Loreal Vs Ravi Gandhi

Entitlement of Injunction against Trade Name on the Strength of Trade Mark

Abstract:

This legal article delves into a recent appellate decision by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, addressing the entitlement of an injunction against the use of a trade name based on the strength of a registered trademark. The case in question revolves around the trademark "MABELLE," where the appellant sought relief against the respondent's use of the mark as part of their company name. The article analyzes the court's reasoning, focusing on the interplay between trademark rights and corporate nomenclature, with particular emphasis on Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Introduction:

The dispute in question arises from an appellate challenge against an order dated 22.02.2023, where the Ld. ADJ permitted the respondent to use the trademark "MABELLE" as part of their company name. The crux of the decision rested on the premise that the inclusion of "MABELLE" in the corporate name granted the respondent the right to use the mark. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, had been overlooked.

Trademark Act Implications:

In granting the appeal, the Hon'ble Division Bench delved into the Trade Marks Act, particularly Section 29(6)(d). The court reasoned that the use of "MABELLE" in the respondent's corporate or business name, including on invoices and business communications, fell within the ambit of this section. Notably, the court found that such use constituted solicitation and an attempt to derive benefits associated with the mark, thus violating the provisions of the Trade Marks Act.

The concluding Note:

The appellate decision in this case sets a significant precedent regarding the entitlement of an injunction against the use of a trade name based on the strength of a registered trademark. The court's careful analysis of Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, and its alignment with the provisions of the Trade Marks Act showcases the necessity of protecting established trademark rights even in the context of corporate nomenclature.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:07.12.2023

Case No. FAO (COMM) 116/2023

Neutral Citation No:NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Yashwant Verma and Ravinder Dudeja HJ

Case Title: Loreal Vs Ravi Gandhi

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are 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,

Ph No: 9990389539

Havells India Limited Vs Polycab India Limited

The Dynamics of Interim Injunctions in Design Infringement Cases

Abstract:

This legal article delves into the intricacies of interim injunctions concerning the infringement of design, with a specific focus on a recent case where the court partially allowed the Interim Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff. The article explores the important legal ratios and principles that emerged from this decision, shedding light on the nuanced considerations undertaken by the court.

Introduction:

Interim injunctions play a pivotal role in intellectual property law, particularly in cases of design infringement. This article examines a recent legal development where an Interim Injunction was partially allowed in favor of the Plaintiff, highlighting key legal principles that shape such decisions.

Prima Facie View in Ad Interim Injunctions:

One critical aspect of the court's decision is the recognition that Ad Interim Injunction orders reflect only a prima facie view. This implies that the court, at the interim stage, considers the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to form an initial opinion. The court acknowledges the temporary nature of this view, understanding that a comprehensive assessment will occur during the trial.

Non-Binding Nature of Ad Interim Injunctions:

The article emphasizes the non-binding nature of Ad Interim Injunction orders. While these orders provide immediate relief to the Plaintiff, they do not conclusively determine the outcome of the case. The court's decision to partially allow the Interim Injunction underscores the recognition that further examination is required during the trial.

Comparison of Design with Respect to the Eye:

A crucial legal ratio established in the recent case is the principle that the comparison of designs must be conducted with respect to the eye. This implies that the court considers the visual impression created by the designs and assesses the likelihood of confusion or imitation from the perspective of an ordinary observer.

Comparison Between Registered Design and Impugned Design:

Traditionally, the comparison is made between the registered design of the Plaintiff and the impugned design of the Defendant. This standard approach ensures a direct assessment of similarities and differences. The court's adherence to this principle reaffirms the importance of comparing the designs at the core of the infringement claim.

Visual Appeals of Competing Products:

In an interesting departure from the norm, the court in this case allowed consideration of the visual appeals of competing products beyond the registered designs. This broader perspective enables a more comprehensive evaluation, taking into account the overall visual impact of the products in question.

Factors Indicating a Conscious Attempt to Imitate:

The court's acknowledgment that it can consider factors indicating a conscious attempt by the Defendant to imitate the Plaintiff's design adds a layer of subjectivity to the analysis. This recognizes that design infringement cases may involve subtle nuances and deliberate efforts to replicate distinctive elements.

The Concluding Note:

This legal article provides an in-depth analysis of a recent case where the court partially allowed an Interim Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff in a design infringement matter. The identified legal ratios and principles shed light on the court's approach to interim relief, emphasizing the provisional nature of such orders and the need for a comprehensive examination during the trial. The nuanced considerations, such as the eye-level comparison and the assessment of visual appeals beyond registered designs, underscore the evolving nature of design infringement jurisprudence.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Havells India Limited Vs Polycab India Limited

Date of Judgement/Order:06.12.2023

Case No. W.P.(C) 4312/2014

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8764

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are 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

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries .Vs Protrition Products

Analysis of Section 30(2)(e) Defense in Trademark Dispute

Introduction:

This case study delves into a recent case where the defense under Section 30(2)(e) was invoked based on trademark registrations in different classes, presenting an analysis of the court's observations and the implications for trademark adjudication.

Background:

The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit relying on their trademark registration in Class 05, while the defendant held registrations in Class 29, 30, and 32. Notably, the defendant lacked registration in Class 5, prompting scrutiny of the applicability of the defense under Section 30(2)(e).

Section 30(2)(e) Overview:

Section 30(2)(e) of the Trademarks Act 1999 stipulates that the use of a registered mark, in accordance with the right derived from its registration, does not constitute infringement. However, the crucial element lies in the alignment of this use with the registered goods and class.

Court's Analysis:

The Hon'ble Court discerned that the defense under Section 30(2)(e) is contingent upon the mark being registered in the specific class relevant to the dispute. In this case, since the defendant's marks lacked registration in Class 5, the protection afforded by Section 30(2)(e) was deemed unavailable.

Interpretation of Right to Use:

The court emphasized that the right to use, as envisaged by Section 30(2)(e), is intrinsically tied to the goods and class specified in the registration. The defendant's registrations in different classes (29, 30, and 32) could not extend the defense to Class 5, as it would contravene the statutory framework.

Limitations of Section 30(2)(e):

The article elucidates that the defense under Section 30(2)(e) cannot be invoked based on the use of a registered mark for goods outside the scope of the granted registration. The defendant's registrations for "ABBZORB" in different classes did not mitigate the infringement allegation related to goods in Class 5.

This Concluding Note:

This he legal analysis underscores the specificity required in relying on Section 30(2)(e) as a defense in trademark disputes. The court's strict adherence to the class and goods specified in the registration reaffirms the importance of precision in trademark protection. 

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:24.11.2023

Case No. W.P.(C)-IPD 18/2022

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8420

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Harishankar, HJ

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd..Vs Protrition Products LLP

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are 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, Ph no: 9990389539

Piruz Khambatta Vs Deputy Registrar of Trademarks

The Significance of Proving Actual Trademark Confusion in Assessing Similarity

Abstract:

This legal article delves into the pivotal aspect of establishing actual trademark confusion when comparing trademarks, as demonstrated by a recent case under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 

Background:

The appellant contested the dismissal of their opposition against the trademark 'RASANAND,' asserting similarity with their registered mark 'RASNA.' The Hon'ble High Court, in its verdict, emphasized the necessity of proving actual confusion and scrutinized the distinctiveness of the marks in various aspects—phonetically, graphically, visually, and structurally.

Introduction:

The case under consideration involves a Trade Marks Act, 1999 appeal against the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 12.7.2023. 

The appellant argued against the dismissal of their opposition, asserting that 'RASANAND' and 'RASNA' were deceptively similar. The Hon'ble High Court's analysis focused on the perceptible differences between the two marks and the absence of demonstrated confusion in the market.

Distinctiveness of Marks:

The court examined the phonetic, graphic, visual, and structural elements of 'RASNA' and 'RASANAND.' It concluded that, ex-facie, the marks exhibited distinctiveness. This thorough assessment highlights the court's commitment to scrutinizing trademarks comprehensively, emphasizing the need for clarity in differentiating between marks to prevent consumer confusion.

Absence of Deceptive Similarity:

The Hon'ble High Court's dismissal of the appeal rested on the determination that 'RASANAND' was not deceptively similar to the registered mark 'RASNA.' The court underscored the lack of confusion among consumers actively seeking the product 'RASNA.' This underscores the court's commitment to protecting consumers from potential confusion in the marketplace.

Role of Actual Confusion in Trademark Disputes:

A crucial aspect leading to the dismissal of the appeal was the appellant's failure to present evidence demonstrating actual confusion between 'RASNA' and 'RASANAND.' Despite 'RASANAND' co-existing in the market for over 19 years, the absence of documented cases of confusion played a pivotal role in the court's decision. This reiterates the significance of tangible proof of confusion in trademark disputes.

The Concluding Note:

This case underscores the importance of proving actual confusion in trademark disputes. The Hon'ble High Court's emphasis on distinctiveness and the absence of demonstrated confusion reinforces the principle that legal determinations in trademark matters must be grounded in tangible evidence. 

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:04.12.2023

Case No. CIVIL APPEAL NO.  18 of 202

Neutral Citation No:NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: Gujarat High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Niral R Mehta, HJ

Case Title: Piruz Khambatta Vs Deputy Registrar of Trademarks

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are 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, 

Ph no: 9990389539

Anurag Saxena Trading as unique International Vs Ravi Saini

Triple Identity Test and Grant of Interim Injunction in the "Hammer of Thor" Trademark Infringement Case

Introduction:

The recent legal proceedings in the matter of the "Hammer of Thor" trademark infringement case highlight the significance of the Triple Identity Test in granting interim injunctions. The Plaintiff, claiming prior adoption and trademark registration since 2013, filed a suit against the Defendants who used an identical trademark for food supplement capsules. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, drawing upon the precedent set in Ahmed Oomerbhoy v. Gautam Tank (2007 SCC OnLine Del 1685), employed the Triple Identity Test to establish the infringement and subsequently granted an interim injunction.

Background and Legal Basis:

The Plaintiff's case rested on the prior adoption and usage of the trademark "HAMMER OF THOR" in the context of ayurvedic capsules and gels. The Plaintiff asserted trademark registrations in class 03, 05, and 35 since 2013, and a copyright registration since 2019. The Defendants were accused of using an identical mark for food supplement capsules, leading the Plaintiff to seek legal recourse.

The Triple Identity Test:

As established in the Ahmed Oomerbhoy case, involves examining the similarity of the marks, the identity of the goods or services, and the likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers. In the present case, the court applied this test to determine whether the Defendants' use of the identical mark would lead to confusion among customers.

Application of the Triple Identity Test:

The court observed that the Defendants had adopted an identical mark to that of the Plaintiff's "HAMMER OF THOR" in the same field of business. The court emphasized that this action was an attempt by the Defendants to benefit from the Plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. Drawing parallels with the Ahmed Oomerbhoy case, where a similar mark ("Super Postman") was considered infringing due to its similarity, common goods, and shared trade area, the court found that the Triple Identity Test was satisfied in the current scenario.

Grant of Interim Injunction:

Upon establishing the Triple Identity, the court concluded that the Defendants' adoption of an identical mark would likely cause confusion among consumers. Recognizing the potential harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi exercised its discretionary power and granted an interim injunction against the Defendants. This injunction serves as a provisional measure to prevent further harm to the Plaintiff's interests until a final decision is reached in the lawsuit.

The concluding Note:

The "Hammer of Thor" trademark infringement case exemplifies the courts' reliance on the Triple Identity Test in cases of alleged trademark infringement. The decision to grant an interim injunction underscores the importance of protecting established goodwill and reputation in the marketplace.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:04.12.2023

Case No. CS Comm 866 of 2023

Neutral Citation No:NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh HJ

Case Title: Anurag Saxena Trading as unique International Vs Ravi Saini

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are 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,

Ph No: 9990389539

Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Authority

The Significance of DUS (Distinctiveness, Uniformity, and Stability) Test in the Protection of Plant Variety Act

Abstract:

The Judgement discussed herein delves into the pivotal role played by the "DUS (Distinctiveness, Uniformity, and Stability) Test" in the registration process of plant varieties under the Protection of Plant Variety Act. Through the lens of five writ petitions brought before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the article scrutinizes the question of whether the DUS Test is a prerequisite before the publication of a Plant Variety application.

Introduction:

The Protection of Plant Variety Act aims to safeguard the rights of plant breeders and promote the development of new plant varieties. Central to this regulatory framework is the DUS Test, a comprehensive examination that assesses the distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability of a plant variety. This article explores the legal significance of the DUS Test, focusing on its role in the pre-publication stage of a Plant Variety application.

The Writ Petitions:

Five writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi raised a fundamental query: Does the DUS Test need to be conducted before the publication of a Plant Variety application? The controversy revolved around the advertisement of five plant varieties, namely MRC 7351 BGII, MRC 6322 Bt, MRC 7383 BG II, MRC 6918 Bt, and MRC 7301 BG II. The petitioners argued that these applications were erroneously advertised without undergoing the essential DUS Test.

Legal Precedent:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, referring to a prior judgment reported as "262 (2019) DLT 411 in the case of Pioneer Overseas Corporation Vs. Chairperson Protection of Plant Varieties Rights", upheld the significance of the DUS Test. The court, in the earlier case, had established that Section 19 of the Protection of Plant Variety Act mandates the completion of the DUS Test before the advertisement of a plant variety application.

Judicial Analysis:

The Hon'ble Single Judge, presiding over the five writ petitions, concurred with the precedent and emphasized the mandatory nature of the DUS Test before the advertisement stage. In a reasoned judgment, the court highlighted the statutory framework of the Protection of Plant Variety Act, underscoring the need for a thorough examination of distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability. The court held that as the subject matter applications were advertised without undergoing the DUS Test, such advertisements were irregular and set aside.

Remand and Implications:

The court, after setting aside the advertisements, remanded the applications back to the Registrar for compliance with the statutory requirement of the DUS Test. This decision underscores the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of the registration process, ensuring that plant varieties are scrutinized for their distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability before they are made available to the public.

The Concluding Note:

The DUS Test emerges as a linchpin in the Protection of Plant Variety Act, serving as a robust mechanism for evaluating the essential characteristics of plant varieties. The Delhi High Court's reaffirmation of the mandatory nature of the DUS Test prior to advertisement reinforces the commitment to maintaining the integrity of plant variety registrations, thus striking a balance between the interests of plant breeders and the public.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:04.12.2023

Case No. W.P.(C) 4312/2014

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8595

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Authority

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are 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