Priya Randolph Vs Deputy Controller of Patent and Design

Background:

The Appellant, seeking protection for an invention titled "For selectively concealing physical address information," lodged Application No. 201641026786. However, the Controller of Patents, in a decision dated July 31, 2017, declined the grant of patent. The primary contention of the Controller was that the invention merely represented a business method. Consequently, the Controller invoked Section 3(k) of the Patent Act to justify the rejection.

Section 3(k) of the Patent Act:

Section 3(k) of the Patent Act serves as a crucial provision that delineates what cannot be patented. Specifically, it bars patents for inventions that are nothing more than business methods. This provision underscores the legislative intent to ensure that patents are granted for technological innovations rather than mere methods of doing business.

High Court's Observations:

Upon appeal, the High Court undertook a meticulous examination of the matter. The Court's primary contention was that the essence of the claimed invention wasn't rooted merely in a business method. Instead, the invention involved the deployment of hardware, software, and firmware. These components collectively aimed at enhancing data privacy and protection mechanisms. 

Implications: 

The Court astutely observed that the mere involvement of a business process or method in an invention doesn't ipso facto render it unpatentable. What is pivotal is the overarching nature and essence of the invention. In this context, since the invention under consideration primarily revolved around data privacy mechanisms implemented through tangible technological components, labelling it as a mere business method was untenable.The decision holds significance for future patent applications that may incorporate business methods within technological frameworks. 

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:20.12.2023

Case No. OA/13/2018/PT/CHN

Neutral Citation No:2023:MHC;5450

Name of Hon'ble Court: Madras High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, HJ

Case Title: Priya Randolph Vs Deputy Controller of Patent and Design

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

House of Diagnostics LLP Vs House of Pathology

The conscious attempt by the Defendant in copying the idea behind Plaintiff's Registered Trademark

Introduction: When an entity deliberately mimics another's trademark, it not only infringes upon intellectual property rights but also confuses consumers, leading to potential financial harm for the original brand. The case at hand, involving the Plaintiff's registered trademark "HOD" and "House of Diagnostics," and the Defendant's use of "HOP" and "House of Pathology," exemplifies the intricacies and implications of such disputes. Background: Since 2008, the Plaintiff has established its brand identity under the trademark "HOD," further embellished with the words "House of Diagnostics." This registration pertains explicitly to diagnostic services. However, the Defendant's introduction of a strikingly similar trademark, "HOP," along with the accompanying "House of Pathology," for identical diagnostic services, sparked this legal confrontation. The Court's Observations: The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's intervention became imperative to address the contentious issue. The court's observations form the crux of the case's outcome: Deliberate Copying of Idea:

The court's astute observation highlighted the Defendant's conscious attempt to emulate the Plaintiff's brand identity. By adopting the nomenclature "House of Pathology," the Defendant unmistakably mirrored the Plaintiff's "House of Diagnostics." Such intentional replication indicates not mere coincidence but a calculated strategy to benefit from the Plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. Identical Layout and Placement:

The visual representation of both trademarks further accentuated the Defendant's infringement. The Defendant's use of "HOP" in bold, juxtaposed with "House of Pathology" in smaller letters, mirrored the Plaintiff's design of "HOD" and "House of Diagnostics." This identical layout underscores the Defendant's attempt not only to replicate the name but also the visual essence of the Plaintiff's trademark. Confusion and Misrepresentation:

Trademark infringement transcends mere copying; it delves into the potential confusion and misrepresentation it can cause among consumers. Given the striking similarities between the Plaintiff's and Defendant's trademarks, consumers could easily misconstrue the origin or affiliation of services, jeopardizing the Plaintiff's market position and consumer trust. Legal Implications and Conclusion: The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's grant of an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff underscores the severity of the Defendant's infringement. Such judicial intervention reaffirms the sanctity of trademark rights, emphasizing the need to protect businesses from unfair competition and brand dilution. In essence, this case exemplifies the pivotal role of trademark law in safeguarding business identities. The Defendant's conscious attempt to replicate the Plaintiff's trademark, both in name and design, epitomizes trademark infringement's ramifications.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: House of Diagnostics LLP Vs House of Pathology

Date of Judgement/Order:12.12.2023

Case No. CS Comm 869 of 2023

Neutral Citation No:N.A.

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,

Ph No: 9990389539

Scotch Whisky Association Vs J K Enterprises

The locus of Registered Proprietor to Institute Suit in Geographical Indication Infringement Cases

Introduction:

The protection and enforcement of GIs are pivotal to safeguarding regional specialties from unauthorized use or imitation. A recent judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh delineates the contours of the locus of a Registered Proprietor (RP) to initiate legal proceedings concerning GI infringement. This article elucidates the intricacies of the judgment and its implications on GI protection jurisprudence.

Background:

The Plaintiff sought protection for its GI Application No. 151 concerning Scotch Whisky under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. However, the Ld. Trial Court, invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), rejected the plaint due to the non-impleadment of an Authorized User (AU). The order, dated 28.10.2021, in CS no. 07/2020 from the Commercial Court in District Indore, became the subject of scrutiny before the Hon'ble High Court.

High Court's Analysis:

Interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: 

The Hon'ble High Court meticulously analyzed Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and categorically stated that the non-joinder or joinder of necessary parties does not serve as a ground for the outright rejection of a plaint. The court emphasized that procedural aspects like joinder/non-joinder can be addressed at subsequent stages of the trial, ensuring that mere procedural irregularities do not stifle substantive rights.

Locus of Registered Proprietor: 

Delving into the Geographical Indications Act, 1999, and the accompanying Rules of 2002, the High Court elucidated the pivotal role of the Registered Proprietor. The court underscored that the genesis of a GI tag emanates from the application of the Registered proprietor or another applicant, emphasizing that the Registered proprietor stands distinct and independent of the Authorized User . The court's observation elucidates that while the RP can act independently, they must be kept informed regarding any additions or alterations concerning the AU in the GI register.

Independence of RP (Registered Proprietor) vis-à-vis AU (Authorized User): 

The judgment significantly underscores the autonomy and distinct identity of the RP concerning the GI Act. The RP's capacity to institute actions, including renewal or seeking additional protection, reinforces their pivotal role in ensuring the integrity and protection of the geographical indication.

Implications and Conclusion:

The judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh accentuates the pivotal role of the Registered Proprietor in the realm of Geographical Indications. By emphasizing the RP's autonomy and independent locus to institute legal proceedings, the court fortifies the legislative intent behind the GI Act, ensuring robust protection against infringements.

The Concluding Note:

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirms the foundational principles underpinning GI protection in India, ensuring that the interplay between substantive rights and procedural compliance strikes a harmonious balance, fortifying the protection accorded to regional specialties and upholding the sanctity of Geographical Indications.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Scotch Whisky Association Vs J K Enterprises

Date of Judgement/Order:18.12.2023

Case No. Misc. Petition No. 4543 of 2021

Neutral Citation: N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Indore Bench]

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Hirdesh, 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

Mr.Tony Mon George Vs Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs

New form of Known substances and Bar of Section 3 (d) of Patent Act 1970 

Introduction:

Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, serves as a safeguard against evergreening of patents. This article delves into a recent decision by the Hon'ble High Court concerning the application of Section 3(d) to the compound RTA-408 and its polymorphic forms.

Background:

The Controller of Patents, in an order dated 18.09.2020, refused the grant of a patent for the compound RTA-408 under Patent Application No.8486/DELNP/2014. The primary contention revolved around the applicability of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Applicant, in their defense, posited that RTA-408 was not a known substance and hence Section 3(d) was inapplicable.

Understanding Section 3(d):

Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, is a provision aimed at ensuring that mere trivial modifications of known substances do not receive patent protection. The provision essentially bars patents for:

"the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant."

This provision is instrumental in preventing 'evergreening', where patentees attempt to extend patent protection by making trivial modifications to known substances without substantial improvement in efficacy.

The High Court's Analysis:

The Hon'ble High Court undertook a meticulous examination of the claimed invention vis-à-vis RTA-408 and its comparison with another substance, TX-63682. The court elucidated that the claimed invention contains additional fluorine atoms, delineating a distinct chemical composition from RTA-408. This differentiation is crucial as it indicates that the invention is not merely a new form of RTA-408 but possesses distinct chemical attributes.

Furthermore, the court took cognizance of the structural similarities between the claimed invention and TX-63682, particularly highlighting the di-methyl substitution in the former. Despite potential structural resemblances, the presence of this substitution underscores the uniqueness of the claimed invention. Hence bar of Section 3 (d) was held not to be applicable in the instant case.

Implications and Conclusion:

The decision by the Hon'ble High Court in this case provides significant clarity on the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. By emphasizing the distinct chemical composition and structural variations, the court elucidated that the claimed invention cannot be categorized merely as a new form of a known substance.

The Concluding Note:

While Section 3(d) serves as a bulwark against the unwarranted extension of patent protection, its application necessitates a rigorous examination of the substance's characteristics. The decision concerning RTA-408 exemplifies the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles enshrined in the Patents Act, 1970, and ensuring that patent protection is conferred judiciously and in consonance with legislative intent.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Mr.Tony Mon George Vs Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs

Date of Judgement/Order:20.12.2023

Case No. (T) CMA (PT) No.150 of 2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:MHC;5451

Name of Hon'ble Court: Madras High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, 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

Institute of Directors Vs Worlddevcorp Tachnology and Business

The Effect of statement made by a party in reply to Trademark Examination Report

Introduction:

The case in question pertains to a dispute between two entities: the Plaintiff, holding the trademark 'IOD' representing 'Institute of Directors,' and the Defendant, accused of infringing upon this trademark by using 'Directors Institute.'

Factual Background:

The Plaintiff initiated the litigation, asserting its exclusive rights over the trademark 'IOD,' claiming that the Defendant's use of 'Directors Institute' infringed upon its registered mark. However, the Defendant's defense was anchored on a seemingly contradictory stance adopted by the Plaintiff during the examination of its trademark application.

Contradictory Standpoint of the Plaintiff:

A pivotal point of contention arose from the Plaintiff's response to the examination report concerning its trademark application. In its reply, the Plaintiff contended that the words constituting the mark, being common English language words, were merely descriptive in nature. The Plaintiff argued that such generic and descriptive terms could not vest exclusive proprietary rights in any single entity.

Legal Analysis:

The case unravels complex legal intricacies concerning the doctrine of 'acquired distinctiveness' and the principle of 'estoppel by conduct.'

Acquired Distinctiveness:

The Plaintiff's initial stance, recognizing the descriptive nature of 'IOD,' may have inadvertently weakened its claim to inherent distinctiveness. This acknowledgment could be leveraged by the Defendant to argue against the exclusive proprietary rights asserted by the Plaintiff.

Estoppel by Conduct:

The doctrine of estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim or right that is contradictory to its previous actions or statements if such assertion would unfairly prejudice another party. In the present case, the Plaintiff's earlier admission regarding the descriptive nature of the mark could estop it from subsequently asserting exclusive rights over the same mark against the Defendant.

Judicial Pronouncement:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in its wisdom, declined to grant an injunction in favor of the Plaintiff. The Court's decision seems to be predicated on the Plaintiff's own admission regarding the descriptive nature of the mark 'IOD.' By adopting a contradictory stance, the Plaintiff inadvertently undermined its claim, thereby providing the Court with a rationale to rule in favor of the Defendant.

The Concluding Note:

Trademark disputes necessitate a meticulous examination of facts, legal principles, and precedents. The case involving the Plaintiff's trademark 'IOD' underscores the significance of consistency in legal assertions and the potential ramifications of adopting contradictory stances.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Institute of Directors Vs Worlddevcorp Tachnology and Business

Date of Judgement/Order:11.12.2023

Case No. CS Comm 611 of 2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC;8923

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,

Ph No: 9990389539

Google LLC Vs Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd.

Use of Google Keyword Does Not Constitute Infringement of Trademark

Introduction:

The intersection of trademark law and digital advertising has given rise to several contentious issues, one of which revolves around the use of trademarks as keywords in online advertising platforms like Google Ads. The recent judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Booking Netherlands and Booking India vs. MIPL provides significant clarity on this subject.

Background:

The Respondent/Plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction against the Defendants, requiring them to refrain from using MIPL’s word trademarks as keywords in the Google Ads Program. The crux of the dispute was the alleged infringement of the mark ‘MakeMyTrip’ by using it as a keyword in the said program.

The Single Judge’s Order:

On 27th April 2022, the Hon'ble Single Judge, in Suit CS Comm No. 268 of 2022, granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from using the mark ‘MakeMyTrip’ as a keyword, with or without spaces, on the Google Ads Program. This order was based on the presumption that such use could lead to trademark infringement.

The Division Bench’s Analysis:

However, the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi took a divergent view and set aside the Single Judge’s order. The Bench emphasized that the mere use of a trademark as a keyword in an online advertising program does not amount to trademark infringement. The core reasoning behind this conclusion is rooted in the fundamental principles of trademark law and its application in the digital era.

Analysis:

Nature of Trademark Infringement:

Trademark infringement traditionally occurs when a third party uses a mark in a manner that creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers regarding the origin of goods or services. The use of a trademark as a keyword, however, does not necessarily lead to such confusion. When users search for a particular keyword, they are presented with a list of results, and there's no guarantee that the advertised product or service originates from the trademark owner.

No Direct Application to Material:

The Court rightly observed that the use of a trademark as a keyword does not involve its application on any material for labeling, packaging, or advertising goods/services. Both Google and the advertiser do not physically apply the trademark to any material. Instead, the keyword merely triggers an algorithm that displays relevant advertisements.

Digital Landscape and Consumer Understanding:

In the digital age, consumers are accustomed to seeing multiple results when they search for a particular term. They can distinguish between organic search results and paid advertisements. Hence, the mere appearance of a trademark as a keyword does not inherently mislead consumers about the origin of goods or services.

Precedents and International Perspective:

Courts worldwide have grappled with the issue of keyword advertising and trademark infringement. Many jurisdictions, like the European Union, have adopted a nuanced approach, emphasizing the importance of consumer perception and the absence of direct confusion. The Delhi High Court's decision aligns with this global trend, recognizing the distinct nature of online advertising.

The concluding Note:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's judgment in Booking Netherlands and Booking India vs. MIPL provides a balanced and forward-thinking approach to the evolving challenges posed by digital advertising in the realm of trademark law. By distinguishing between traditional notions of trademark infringement and the realities of online advertising, the Court has ensured that legal principles remain relevant and adaptable to technological advancements.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Google LLC Vs Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd.

Date of Judgement/Order:14.12.2023

Case No. FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2022

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC;8960-DB

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan 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

Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kunal Singhm

Analyzing the Cancellation of the Trademark "GLEE" as Deceptively Similar to "GLEN"

Abstract:

This legal article provides a comprehensive analysis of a recent trademark dispute wherein the Respondent's mark "GLEE" was held to be deceptively similar to the Petitioner's registered trademark "GLEN." The decision resulted in the cancellation of the impugned trademark. The article examines the grounds for cancellation, focusing on the principles of deceptive similarity and the implications for trademark owners in protecting their intellectual property rights.

Introduction:

The case in question revolves around a dispute between the Petitioner, the owner of the registered trademark "GLEN," and the Respondent, who had adopted the mark "GLEE" for similar goods or services. The contention of deceptive similarity led the court to cancel the Respondent's trademark. This article delves into the legal intricacies surrounding the cancellation and the principles applied to determine deceptive similarity.

Principles of Deceptive Similarity:

Deceptive similarity is a fundamental concept in trademark law, wherein a mark is considered deceptively similar if it creates a likelihood of confusion among the consumers regarding the origin of the goods or services. Courts typically consider similarities between marks. The article explores how these principles were applied in the context of the "GLEN" and "GLEE" dispute.

Registration and Protection of Trademarks:

*

Trademark registration confers exclusive rights to the owner, providing a legal basis to prevent others from using confusingly similar marks. The article discusses how the Petitioner's registered trademark "GLEN" played a pivotal role in asserting its rights and initiating the cancellation proceedings against the Respondent's mark "GLEE." The importance of registration in trademark disputes is highlighted as a crucial factor in establishing ownership and infringement claims.

Implications for Trademark Owners:

The cancellation of the "GLEE" trademark has significant implications for trademark owners seeking protection against potential infringing marks. The article discusses the heightened importance of conducting thorough trademark searches before adopting a new mark and the proactive measures trademark owners can take to safeguard their intellectual property rights.

The concluding Note:

This legal article provides an in-depth analysis of the cancellation of the "GLEE" trademark due to its deceptive similarity to the registered mark "GLEN." The case underscores the critical role of trademark registration and the principles of deceptive similarity in resolving disputes and protecting the rights of trademark owners.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kunal Singhm

Date of Judgement/Order:11.12.2023

Case No. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 364/2021

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC;8986

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

AGVA Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs AGFA-Gevert NV

Distinction Between Reasonable Cause, Good Cause, and Sufficient Cause in Admitting Additional Documents

Abstract:

This legal article delves into a recent decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, where the court affirmed the trial court's order allowing the admission of additional documents in a commercial dispute. The article scrutinizes the distinctions made by the court between "reasonable cause," "good cause," and "sufficient cause" in the context of admitting supplementary documents. The court's reliance on precedents, particularly the Madanlal vs. Shyamlal case, and the nuanced interpretation of procedural rules, provides valuable insights into the liberal exercise of powers under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Introduction:

The case under consideration involves an appeal filed against an order of the Ld. ADJ in CS (COMM) No. 858/2022. The Ld. ADJ allowed the respondents' application under Order XI Rule 1(5) to admit additional documents. The primary basis for admission was the pending framing of issues and the relevance of the additional documents to the dispute.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in affirming the trial court's decision, undertook a meticulous analysis of the distinctions between "reasonable cause," "good cause," and "sufficient cause" in the context of admitting additional documents.

Legal Framework and Procedural Rules:

The court's analysis hinged on the language used in Order XIII Rule 2 CPC (now repealed) and its replacement under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court noted that while the former required the showing of "good cause," the latter necessitated a demonstration of "reasonable cause."

Drawing from the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Madanlal vs. Shyamlal, the court emphasized the lower threshold of proof required for "good cause" compared to "sufficient cause." The liberal exercise of powers under Order XI Rule 1(5) was underscored, given the usage of the term "reasonable cause."

The Madanlal Vs. Shyamlal Precedent:

The court's reliance on the Madanlal Vs. Shyamlal decision (2002) 1 SCC 535 played a pivotal role in shaping its perspective on the distinction between "good cause" and "sufficient cause." The Supreme Court, in that case, held that "good cause" demands a lower degree of proof than "sufficient cause." This precedent informed the court's approach in the present case, asserting that the power under Order XI Rule 1(5) should be exercised liberally, considering the even lower threshold of "reasonable cause."

Practical Implications and Application:

The article analyzes the practical implications of the court's distinction between "reasonable cause," "good cause," and "sufficient cause" in the admission of additional documents. The court's approach signifies a proclivity towards a lenient standard, allowing parties greater flexibility in introducing evidence. The lower threshold of "reasonable cause" is seen as a pragmatic response to the evolving dynamics of modern commercial litigation, ensuring a more efficient and expeditious resolution of disputes.

The concluding Note:

This article underscores the significance of the Delhi High Court's nuanced distinction between "reasonable cause," "good cause," and "sufficient cause" in the admission of additional documents. The court's reliance on the Madanlal Vs. Shyamlal precedent and its interpretation of procedural rules underlines the imperative of a liberal approach in exercising such powers.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: AGVA Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs AGFA-Gevert NV

Date of Judgement/Order:14.12.2023

Case No. FAO (COMM) 222/2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC;8958-DB

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja, 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