Information on this blog is being shared only for the purpose of creating legal awareness in public at large, especially in the field of Intellectual Property Right. As there may be possibility of error, omission or mistake in legal interpretation on the contents of this blog, it should not be treated as substitute for legal advise. [ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN, EMAIL: ajayamitabh7@gmail.com, Mob:09990389539]
Wednesday, January 10, 2024
Pespsico India Holding Vs Kavitha Kuruganti
JRPL Riceland Vs Neeraj Mittal
Monday, January 8, 2024
Diabliss Consumer Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs Overra Foods
Trademark Infringement and the 'DIABLISS' Vs. 'DIABEAT' Case
Introduction:
The realm of intellectual property rights is vital for fostering innovation and ensuring fair competition. Trademarks serve as essential tools in this framework by providing businesses with exclusive rights over their distinct signs, symbols, and names. The case between 'DIABLISS' and 'DIABEAT' before Delhi High Court epitomizes the significance of protecting these rights and the consequences of their infringement.
Background:
This petition has been filed for removal of the trademark ‘DIABEAT’ bearing registration No.3664179 in Class 30 in the name of the respondent ‘OVERRA FOODS’ and rectification of the Register of Trade Marks under Sections 57/125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Petitioner herein /plaintiff, who produces a diabetic-friendly sugar under the registered trademark 'DIABLISS', accused the Respondent/ defendant of marketing a strikingly similar product named 'DIABEAT' earlier filed a Suit before Madras High Court . Not only did the defendant mimic the name, but the packaging and trade dress also bore a close resemblance. Such actions undoubtedly posed a significant risk of consumer confusion, potentially diluting the distinctiveness of the plaintiff's mark. In suit before Madras High Court , interim Injunction was granted in favour of Petitioner herein/Plaintiff therein
Initial Injunction:
Recognizing the potential harm caused by the defendant's actions, the Madras High Court initially granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiff. This preliminary relief underscored the court's immediate recognition of the apparent similarities between the two marks and the potential for market confusion. This order was the main guiding factor , which resulted in allowance of present rectification petition.
The Doctrine of Malafide and Dishonesty:
Central to the court's subsequent decision was the finding that the defendant's actions were "a mala fide and dishonest attempt to cause confusion in the market." The term 'mala fide' signifies bad faith, implying that the defendant intentionally sought to exploit the reputation and goodwill associated with the 'DIABLISS' mark. Such dishonest conduct is antithetical to the principles underpinning trademark law, which seeks to protect both consumers and legitimate businesses from deceptive practices.
Grounds for Removal of 'DIABEAT' Trademark:
The court's decision to order the removal of the 'DIABEAT' trademark stemmed from a comprehensive assessment of various factors:
1. Likelihood of Confusion: The similarities in the names, packaging, and trade dress between 'DIABLISS' and 'DIABEAT' created a substantial likelihood of confusion among consumers, thereby undermining the distinctiveness and exclusivity associated with the 'DIABLISS' mark.
2. Infringement of Registered Trademark:By replicating key elements of the 'DIABLISS' mark, the defendant infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark rights, thereby violating the statutory protections afforded under the relevant intellectual property laws.
3. Prevention of Unfair Competition:Beyond mere trademark infringement, the defendant's actions constituted unfair competition by capitalizing on the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation in the market. Such conduct erodes trust and undermines the principles of fair competition, necessitating judicial intervention to rectify the imbalance.
The Concluding Note:
The 'DIABLISS' Vs. 'DIABEAT' case serves as a poignant reminder of the critical role played by trademark law in safeguarding businesses' intellectual property rights and preserving fair competition in the marketplace.
The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Diabliss Consumer Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs Overra Foods
Date of Judgement/Order:05.01.2024
Case No. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 307/2022
Neutral Citation: NA
Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal, H.J.
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
Friday, January 5, 2024
University Health Network Vs Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited
Jurisdiction of High Court on the Basis of Cause of Action
Introduction:
The matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras revolved around the intricate issue of jurisdiction concerning the entertainment of a writ petition challenging the refusal of a pre-grant notice of opposition related to a patent application filed in Delhi. The central question was whether the Madras High Court had the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a matter as the Patent Application and pre grant notice of opposition was filed in Delhi.
Factual Background:
The Petitioner, seeking to oppose the Indian Patent Application No.9067/DELNP/2010 of the fourth respondent related to a fluorescence-based imaging and monitoring device, initiated pre-grant opposition proceedings before the Delhi office of the Controller. However, despite the filing being in Delhi, the hearing took place in Chennai and pre grant notice of opposition was rjected. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the pre-grant opposition, the Petitioner approached the Madras High Court through a writ petition.
Jurisdictional Challenge:
The primary contention revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The locus of the patent application and the pre-grant notice of opposition was Delhi, raising doubts about the appropriateness of approaching the Madras High Court. However, the Petitioner anchored the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court on the grounds of accrual of cause of action, contending that the grant of the patent would adversely impact its business operations in Chennai.
Legal Analysis:
The constitutional framework governing the jurisdiction of High Courts in India is encapsulated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The provision empowers any High Court to exercise jurisdiction within the territories where the cause of action, wholly or partially, arises, irrespective of the seat of the Government, authority, or the residence of the concerned parties.
The Madras High Court, in its wisdom, interpreted Article 226 expansively to assert its jurisdiction. The Court underscored that the crucial determinant for invoking its jurisdiction was the accrual of cause of action. Given that the Petitioner's business interests in Chennai would be significantly affected by the grant of the patent in Delhi, the Madras High Court concluded that it possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
Implications:
The Madras High Court's decision exemplifies a purposive and liberal interpretation of jurisdiction, emphasizing the substantive justice over technicalities. By adopting a cause-of-action-based approach, the Court ensured that litigants are not unduly circumscribed by rigid territorial boundaries, particularly in matters where the repercussions transcend geographical confines.
The Concluding Note:
The Madras High Court's adjudication elucidates the evolving jurisprudential stance on jurisdictional issues in India, particularly in the realm of intellectual property rights. By emphasizing the primacy of the cause of action, the Court harmonized constitutional imperatives with the exigencies of justice, thereby reaffirming the expansive ambit of Article 226 in safeguarding individual and corporate rights against potential infringements, irrespective of geographical limitations.
The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: University Health Network Vs Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited
Date of Judgement/Order:03.01.2024
Case No. Writ Appeal No.3076 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC:AS:37466
Name of Hon'ble Court: Chennai High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjay V Gangapurwala and D Bharwtha Chakravarthy, H.J.
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
Thursday, January 4, 2024
Puma SE Vs India Mart Intermesh Limited
Manya Vejju @ MV Kasi Vs Sapna Bhog
Tuesday, January 2, 2024
Freebit As Vs Exotic Mile Private Limited
Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar Vs Yash Raj Films Private Ltd.
Introduction:
The crux of the legal dispute revolves around the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's copyrighted script titled ‘Kabu na chhadein Khet’ by the Defendant's movie, 'Shamshera'. The central issue is whether the latter amounts to a substantial reproduction of the former, thereby violating the Plaintiff's copyright.
Legal Principles Established:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in its evaluation, leaned on established legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court's stance underscores that mere ideas, principles, themes, or historical/legendary facts, being part of the public domain, cannot be monopolized by any individual for copyright protection.
The Supreme Court's test for copyright infringement emphasizes the perception of the audience. Specifically, if a viewer, reader, or spectator concludes that one work is a mere replica of another upon analyzing both, it suggests a violation. The critical question is whether the subsequent work imitates the original to such an extent that the essence or core of the original is palpably evident.
Application to the Present Case:
Upon contrasting the Plaintiff's script, ‘Kabu na chhadein Khet’, with the Defendant's movie, 'Shamshera', the Delhi High Court observed discernible differences that overshadowed the purported similarities. The court highlighted that while there might be overlapping themes or elements, these resemblances were not sufficiently pronounced to hint at copyright infringement.
The essence of the court's decision rested on the concept of 'substantial copying.' To establish copyright infringement, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the heart or crux of their work has been replicated in the defendant's creation. In the present scenario, despite a meticulous comparison, the court did not discern a clear and prima facie case indicating that the Defendants had emulated the essential elements of the Plaintiff's script.
The Concluding Note:
In essence, while the realm of copyright law seeks to protect creators from unjust appropriation of their original works, it also recognizes the inherent freedom of creators to explore common themes and ideas uniquely.
The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar Vs Yash Raj Films Private Ltd.
Date of Judgement/Order:20.12.2023
Case No. CS Comm 878 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:9198
Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Jyoti Singh, H.J.
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
Saturday, December 30, 2023
Khadi and Village Industries Vs Girdhar Industries
Blog Archive
- January 2025 (30)
- October 2024 (8)
- September 2024 (34)
- August 2024 (68)
- July 2024 (39)
- June 2024 (57)
- May 2024 (49)
- April 2024 (6)
- March 2024 (44)
- February 2024 (39)
- January 2024 (21)
- December 2023 (29)
- November 2023 (23)
- October 2023 (29)
- September 2023 (33)
- August 2023 (29)
- July 2023 (29)
- June 2023 (2)
- May 2023 (1)
- April 2023 (5)
- March 2023 (6)
- February 2023 (1)
- November 2022 (17)
- October 2022 (11)
- September 2022 (30)
- August 2022 (47)
- July 2022 (37)
- June 2022 (26)
- October 2020 (1)
- September 2020 (1)
- April 2020 (1)
- March 2020 (1)
- February 2020 (2)
- December 2019 (1)
- September 2019 (3)
- August 2019 (2)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (2)
- February 2019 (2)
- January 2019 (2)
- December 2018 (3)
- November 2018 (1)
- October 2018 (2)
- September 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (8)
- July 2018 (2)
- June 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (41)
- April 2018 (7)
- March 2018 (3)
- February 2018 (4)
- January 2018 (2)
- December 2017 (6)
- November 2017 (4)
- September 2017 (5)
- August 2017 (6)
- July 2017 (1)
- June 2017 (1)
- May 2017 (10)
- April 2017 (16)
- November 2016 (3)
- October 2016 (24)
- March 2015 (2)
- January 2014 (1)
- December 2013 (4)
- October 2013 (2)
- September 2013 (7)
- August 2013 (27)
- May 2013 (7)
- September 2012 (31)
- December 2009 (3)
- September 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (2)
- December 2008 (1)
Featured Post
WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING
WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK REGISTRA...
-
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 317/2018, CAV 617/2018 & CM AP...
-
==================== Judgement Date:29.08.2022 Case No. CM (M) IPD 2 of 2022 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Prathiba M Singh, H.J. Institu...
My Blog List
-
मछलियों में घड़ियाल - गीता-विà¤ूति योग श्रीà¤à¤—वानुवाच “प्रह्लादश्चास्मि दैत्यानां कालः कलयतामहम्। मृगाणां च मृगेन्द्रोऽहं वैनतेयश्च पक्षिणाम्।।” मैं दैत्यों में प्रह्लाद और ग...2 weeks ago
-
Deepfake Technology: Unveiling The Challenges And Protective Measures - Introduction: The rapid evolution of technology has propelled humanity into an era of unprecedented progress and connectivity. However, as with any doubl...1 year ago
-
-
My other Blogging Links
- Ajay Amitabh Suman's Poem and Stories
- Facebook-My Judgments
- Katha Kavita
- Lawyers Club India Articles
- My Indian Kanoon Judgments
- Linkedin Articles
- Speaking Tree
- You Tube-Legal Discussion
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी -Facebook
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी -वर्ड प्रेस
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-दैनिक जागरण
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-नवà¤ारत टाइम्स
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-ब्लॉग स्पॉट
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-स्पीकिंग ट्री