Ab Initio Technology Vs Assitant Controller of Patent

Background:

The case revolves around the rejection of patent applications Nos. 6500/DELNP/2011 and 6501/DELNP/2011 by the Indian Patent Office. The applications were filed by AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC, a company incorporated in the USA, and were divisional applications of Indian Patent Application No. 1167/DELNP/2006. The Patent Office rejected the applications on the grounds that the subject matter was not patentable under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, as they related to a computer program per se or algorithm. Additionally, Application No. 6500/DELNP/2011 was rejected for not being a valid divisional application under Section 16(1) of the Act.

Appellant's Contention:

The appellant argued that the patent applications involved a data processing method that had a 'technical effect' and thus should be patentable. They cited previous court decisions and the legislative history of Section 3(k) to support their claim.

Respondent's Counter Argument:

The respondent, countered that the invention was merely a data processing method without any technical effect and that it did not meet the criteria for patentability.

Judgment:

The Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the objections under Sections 3(k) and 16(1) of the Act were not tenable. He emphasized that the determination of patentability should focus on the underlying substance of the invention rather than its form. The court found that the invention had a 'technical effect' by increasing the speed of functional dependency analysis and saving computer resources, which went beyond the normal interaction between software and hardware.

However, the court remanded the matter to the Office of Controller General of Patents & Designs for fresh consideration regarding the aspect of Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act, which pertains to the inventive step and prior art. The court directed that a de novo hearing notice be issued and the applications be examined afresh within three months of the receipt of the order.

Conclusion:

The High Court of Delhi set aside the impugned orders rejecting the patent applications and directed a fresh examination of the inventive step and prior art aspects. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the 'technical effect' of computer-related inventions in determining their patentability.

Case Citation: Ab Initio Technology Vs Assitant Controller of Patent:30.07.2024 : C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 26/2021 : Delhi High Court: Anish Dayal. H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs Galactica Processing

Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd Patent Infringement Case pertaining to High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) treatment of diamonds

The Hon'ble Division Bench, High Court of Gujarat recently delivered a judgment on July 19, 2024, in the patent infringement case involving Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd (formerly Sonani Jewels Pvt. Ltd.) and Galactica Processing Technologies LLP & Ors.. This appeal AO No. 139 of 2023 concerns a challenge to an order by the Additional District Judge in Surat regarding a patent infringement case of Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd's registered patent, IN 398302 [The patent.]"

Background:

The nature of the dispute between Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Galactica Processing Technologies LLP & Ors. revolves around allegations of patent infringement and misappropriation of proprietary information. Sonani Industries hold a patent for a diamond holding device used in the High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) treatment of diamonds, which is crucial for maintaining diamond quality during the treatment process.

The Trial Court Order:

Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd was Plaintiff in Trial Court and Appellant in the subject matter Appeal , while Galactica Processing Technologies and Ors are Defendants in the Trial Court Suit proceeding and Respondents in the instant Appeal. The trial court rejected Appellant's injunction application, prompting the appeal.

Appellant's contention:

Sonani Industries alleged that Galactica Processing Technologies LLP & Ors have infringed upon their patent (IN398302) for a diamond holding device used in the HPHT treatment of diamonds. This device is designed to withstand extreme pressure and temperature, which is essential for maintaining diamond quality during the HPHT process. The Appellant alleged that the Respondents were aware of the Appellant's know-how, technical details, proprietary rights, and confidential information while employed by the Appellant, and they have breached their obligation of confidentiality by using this information for their own benefit.

Respondents' Contention:

On the other hand, the Respondents argued that the patent held by Appellant was not novel and that the technology described in the patent was already known and used before the patent's priority date. This challenges the validity of the patent itself. The Respondents claim that the technology in question is based on prior art, specifically referring to a design from 'V. Bakul Institute for Superhard Materials NAS of Ukraine' (Bakul), which was already published and is in the public domain.

The Court's Approach in evaluating the aspect of Patent Infringement:

The court analysed the prior arts provided by the Respondents, such as the Bakul patent, which they claimed disclosed similar or identical technology to the suit patent. The court assessed these documents to determine if they indeed showed a high degree of similarity to the suit patent, as claimed by the Respondents. The court conducted a technical comparison between the suit patent and the prior arts cited. This involved looking at the structural components, functions, and overall design of the diamond holding devices to see if there were substantial differences that would establish the novelty of the suit patent. The court also examined whether the suit patent represented a significant improvement over existing technology or if it was merely a workshop improvement on the Bakul patent, which would not qualify as an invention. These were the basic approach on which the Hon'ble Division Bench focussed while evaluating the aspect of Patent Infringement as claimed by the Appellant.

The Final Analysis:

In the final analysis, the court found that Appellant did not establish a prima facie case for the novelty and inventiveness of the suit patent in light of the prior arts cited by the Respondents. The court's analysis indicated that the Respondents had raised a credible challenge to the validity of the patent by showing that there was a serious question regarding the patent's vulnerability to challenge based on the prior arts. This led to the dismissal of the appeal and the rejection of the injunction application filed by the Appellant.

Implication:

The judgment could influence market competition by potentially allowing multiple players to use similar technologies, as long as they can demonstrate that they are not infringing on valid patents. This could lead to a more competitive market with various companies offering similar services. The case may lead to a greater demand for legal and technical expertise within the diamond industry in Surat, as companies seek to navigate the complexities of patent law and to defend their intellectual property rights.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
Patent and Trademark Attorney
United & United

Star Scientific Limited Vs Controller of Patent

Background:

The appellant, filed a National Phase Patent Application No. 202017011947 for a "Composition, Methods, and Apparatuses for Catalytic Combustion" based on a PCT Application. The application was examined, and a First Examination Report (FER) was issued. The appellant responded to the FER and amended the claims. However, due to financial difficulties, the appellant's Patent Attorney did not attend a scheduled hearing, and the Controller of Patents and Designs refused the patent application. The appellant sought revival of the application, which was not responded to, leading to this appeal.

Arguments:

Appellant: The detailed reply to the FER should have been considered, and the Controller was obligated to pass a reasoned order. The non-attendance at the hearing should not be considered abandonment, especially since the appellant had requested disposal of the application as per the Patent Act.

Respondent: The appeal is misconceived, and the appellant's failure to attend the hearing and provide a clear reason (beyond financial difficulties) indicates a conscious decision to abandon the application.

Judgment:

The Court found that the Controller's order was not reasoned and did not consider the appellant's detailed response to the FER. The Court emphasized that abandonment requires a conscious act, which was not established in this case. The Court set aside the Controller's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, allowing the appellant to file written submissions within five days of the judgment. The Controller is directed to decide the matter on its merits

Case Citation: Star Scientific Limited Vs Controller of Patent:30.07.2024 :C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 20/2024 : 2024:DHC:2643: Delhi High Court: Minipushkarna: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Pramit Sanghavi Vs Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd

In the High Court of Delhi, CS(COMM) 87/2024, I.A. 32018/2024, Pramit Sanghavi and others (plaintiffs) filed a suit against Energy Beverages Private Limited and another (defendants) seeking an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from using a design for natural mineral water bottles that allegedly infringes on the plaintiffs' registered designs. The plaintiffs, are market leaders in the packaged natural mineral water industry, owning brands like QUA, and have significant sales and advertising expenditures. They hold registered design numbers 281573 and 311139, which are allegedly being infringed by the defendants' "NU" water bottle design.

The defendants contend that their design is significantly different from the plaintiffs' and that the plaintiffs' designs are not original, as they are commonly found in the market. They also argue that the plaintiffs' design registrations are not conclusive and seek cancellation of the registrations under the Designs Act, 2000.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, found that the defendants' bottle design is strikingly similar to the plaintiffs' registered designs, with only minor alterations. The court held that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for infringement and that the defendants have not provided substantive grounds for cancellation of the design registrations. The court granted the plaintiffs an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing design until the suit is resolved.

Case Citation: Pramit Sanghavi Vs Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd.:10.07.2024 :CS(COMM) 87/2024 :Delhi High Court: Saurabh Banerjee: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor Vs Controller Of Patents And Designs

Background:

Hygieia, Inc. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of their patent application for 'Systems, Methods and Devices for Achieving Glycemic Balance' by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The application, filed in 2013, was rejected in 2019 under Sections 2(1)(ja), 3(d), 3(k), and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant's invention aimed to provide treatment guidance for diabetes, with claims based on a U.S. patent application that allowed for method patents, which are non-patentable under Indian law.

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments: The appellant argued that the Patent Controller erred by focusing solely on the objection under Section 59 and not considering other objections in light of their written submissions. They contended that their amended claims did not exceed the original specifications and that the method claims were adequately supported by the original application, including figures and descriptions of the device.

Respondent's Arguments: The respondent maintained that the appellant's claims exceeded the original specifications and that the method claims were not patentable under Indian law.

Judgment:

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to a different controller for de novo consideration. The court emphasized that the claims and specifications must be read together, and the amended claims did not exceed the original specifications. The court directed the new controller to dispose of the matter within six months.

Conclusion:

The High Court of Judicature at Madras overturned the rejection of Hygieia, Inc.'s patent application, highlighting the importance of considering the entirety of the patent application and its amendments in the context of Indian patent law.

Case Citation: Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor Vs Controller Of Patents And Designs:24.05.2024 :AID/5/2023 :Calcutta High Court: Ravi Krishan Kapur: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Hygieia, Inc. Vs. Government of India, Patent Office

Background:

Hygieia, Inc. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of their patent application for 'Systems, Methods and Devices for Achieving Glycemic Balance' by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The application, filed in 2013, was rejected in 2019 under Sections 2(1)(ja), 3(d), 3(k), and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant's invention aimed to provide treatment guidance for diabetes, with claims based on a U.S. patent application that allowed for method patents, which are non-patentable under Indian law.

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments: The appellant argued that the Patent Controller erred by focusing solely on the objection under Section 59 and not considering other objections in light of their written submissions. They contended that their amended claims did not exceed the original specifications and that the method claims were adequately supported by the original application, including figures and descriptions of the device.

Respondent's Arguments: The respondent maintained that the appellant's claims exceeded the original specifications and that the method claims were not patentable under Indian law.

Judgment:

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to a different controller for de novo consideration. The court emphasized that the claims and specifications must be read together, and the amended claims did not exceed the original specifications. The court directed the new controller to dispose of the matter within six months.

Conclusion:

The High Court of Judicature at Madras overturned the rejection of Hygieia, Inc.'s patent application, highlighting the importance of considering the entirety of the patent application and its amendments in the context of Indian patent law.

Case Citation: Hygieia, Inc. Vs. Government of India, Patent Office: (T)CMA(PT) No.153 of 2023 : 12.03.2024:Madras High Court: N. Seshasayee: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Gopal Sabu Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is a miscellaneous criminal case involving a petition for the quashment of an FIR (First Information Report) related to trademark infringement. The case involves Gopal Sabu and others versus the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, with the petitioners seeking to quash FIR No. 1347/2022 registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for alleged infringement of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' by the petitioners.

The background of the case includes a civil suit filed by Rajkumar Sabu, proprietor of M/s. Shiv Trading Company, against the petitioners for trademark infringement. Rajkumar Sabu claims to be the original registered owner of the 'SACHAMOTI' trademark, which is in dispute with the petitioners. The Delhi High Court has issued orders restraining the use of the trademark by the petitioners, but they have continued to sell products under the 'SACHAMOTI' brand, leading to the FIR being filed.

The petitioners argue that the FIR should be quashed because the civil suits regarding the ownership of the trademark are still pending, the mandatory provisions of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act have not been complied with, and the matter is essentially a civil dispute being given a criminal angle. They rely on various judgments to support their arguments, including cases where the High Court has quashed FIRs due to legal bars or mala fide intentions.

The respondents argue that the FIR was registered after obtaining the opinion of the Trade Marks Registry, and the police officer who conducted the search and seizure was authorized to do so. They also contend that the pendency of a civil suit does not bar the registration of a criminal case, and the FIR discloses cognizable offenses committed by the petitioners.

The court, after hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, finds no merit in the petitioners' arguments. The court notes that the opinion from the Trade Marks Authority was obtained before registering the FIR, and the search and seizure were conducted with proper authority. The court also states that the pendency of a civil suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the criminal court, and both proceedings can run independently.

The court dismisses the petition, concluding that the FIR and subsequent proceedings are valid and that there is no abuse of the legal process. The court emphasizes that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the court's process or to secure the ends of justice.

Case Citation: Gopal Sabu Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh : 29.07.2024:Misc Crl Case 43601 of 2024: Madhya Pradesh High Court: Binod Kumar Dwivedi: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Arijit Singh Vs Codible Ventures LLP and Ors

The Commercial Division,of Judicature at Bombay High Court heard Interim Application No. 23560 of 2024 in IPR Suit No. 23443 of 2024, involving Arijit Singh as the Applicant/Plaintiff and Codible Ventures LLP and others as Defendants.

The Plaintiff, a celebrated playback singer from Murshidabad, West Bengal, sought protection of his personality rights against unauthorized commercial exploitation, including the misuse of his name, voice, image, and other attributes. He also claimed violation of moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff has achieved significant success in the music industry and is recognized globally for his work.

The Defendants were accused of using AI models to mimic the Plaintiff's voice and other personality traits without authorization, falsely representing an association with the Plaintiff, selling merchandise bearing his name and image, and creating and sharing GIFs of the Plaintiff's performances. Additionally, certain entities registered domain names using the Plaintiff's name.

The Court recognized the Plaintiff's rights to protect his personality traits and granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendants, restraining them from using the Plaintiff's personality rights for commercial gain. The Defendants were ordered to remove infringing content, cancel or suspend domain names, disclose details of the infringing parties, and cooperate with the Plaintiff. The Court also allowed service of the order by email due to the number of Defendants and the potential unavailability of contact details.

Case Citation: Arijit Singh Vs Codible Ventures LLP and Ors.: 12.07.2024:COM IPR SUIT (L) NO.23443 OF 2024: Bombay High Court: R.I.Chagla: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited

The case involves a dispute over the trademark 'CANDEX-B' applied for by the first respondent, Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals, for pharmaceutical products in Class 5. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, the appellant, opposes the registration of 'CANDEX-B', claiming it is confusingly similar to their existing trademark 'CANDID', which has been in use since 1978-79 for dermatological products.

The appellant argues that the first respondent's adoption of 'CANDEX-B' was dishonest and in bad faith, capitalizing on the goodwill of 'CANDID'. They also argue that the first respondent did not conduct a trademark search before adopting the mark, and that the marks are likely to cause confusion among consumers. The appellant requests the court to set aside the registration of 'CANDEX-B', order the first respondent to bear the costs, and prevent the issuance of the registration certificate pending the appeal.

The first respondent contends that they have been using 'CANDEX-B' since 1997 and are entitled to the benefits of Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act as an honest and concurrent user. They argue that both trademarks are derived from the name of the disease candidiasis and that there is no likelihood of confusion.

The court, after considering the arguments and evidence, concludes that the first respondent's use of 'CANDEX-B' is not bona fide and does not qualify as honest and concurrent use under Section 12. The court finds that there is a likelihood of deception or confusion among the public due to the phonetic similarity of the trademarks and their use in relation to similar products. The court also considers the subsequent declaration of 'CANDID' as a well-known trademark and the importance of preventing confusion in pharmaceutical products.

The court sets aside the impugned order and cancels the registration of 'CANDEX-B', directing the removal of the entry from the register of trademarks

Case Citation: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited: 12.07.2024: (T) CMA (TM) No.40 of 2023: Madras High Court: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Glaxo Group Limited Vs IVA Healthcare Pvt. Ltd

Overview of the Case:

This is a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Glaxo Group Limited (the plaintiffs) against Iva Healthcare Private Limited (the defendant).
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's use of the 'ZENTOVATE' mark infringes upon the plaintiffs' registered trademarks 'BETNOVATE' and 'TENOVATE'.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendant's mark is deceptively similar to their marks, both visually and phonetically, and the defendant has adopted it with the mala fide intention of benefiting from the plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill.

Plaintiffs' Trademark Rights:

BETNOVATE Mark:

The plaintiffs have used the 'BETNOVATE' mark for their pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations for decades.

The 'BETNOVATE' mark is inherently distinctive and has acquired the status of a well-known mark under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention.

The plaintiffs have obtained over 150 registrations for the 'BETNOVATE' mark and its variations (e.g., BETNOVATE-N, BETNOVATE-S, BETNOVATE-GM) in numerous countries.

TENOVATE Mark:

The plaintiffs have been using the 'TENOVATE' mark in India since 1990 for their skin creams.

The plaintiffs' products bearing the 'TENOVATE' marks have been sold through a network of distributors and stockists throughout India, as well as online pharmacies.

Defendant's Alleged Infringement:

The defendant is engaged in manufacturing, marketing, and selling pharmaceutical and medicinal products, including creams, under the 'ZENTOVATE' mark.

The defendant's 'ZENTOVATE' mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' 'BETNOVATE' and 'TENOVATE' marks, particularly due to the common letter combination 'OVATE' and the similar initial letter combinations 'ZENT' and 'BETN'.

The defendant's products are also pharmaceutical and medicinal in nature, and are sold through the same trade channels as the plaintiffs' products, targeting the same consumers.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant has adopted the 'ZENTOVATE' mark with the mala fide intention of benefiting from the plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill.

Court's Interim Order:

The court has granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing products bearing the 'ZENTOVATE' mark.

Case Citation: Glaxo Group Limited Vs IVA Healthcare Pvt. Ltd: 22.07.2024: CS(COMM) 593/2024: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Escorts Ltd Vs Sudhir Kumar

Background and Plaintiff's Allegations:

The plaintiff, Escorts Ltd., is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of various equipment, including railway equipment.

The plaintiff had obtained registered designs for 'AAR-H type Couplers' and 'Buffer Couplers'.

The defendant, Sudhir Kumar, is a former employee of the plaintiff who was working in the Engineering Division responsible for the production of railway equipment.

The plaintiff apprehended that the defendant, after leaving the plaintiff's employment, had started a proprietary concern (defendant no. 2) and intended to use the plaintiff's registered designs to participate in a railway tender for supplying AAR-H type Couplers.

Ex-parte Ad-interim Injunction Granted:

Based on the plaintiff's apprehension, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using or transferring the designs and data of the plaintiff's registered designs of AAR-H type Couplers.

The court also appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises and seize any infringing goods or materials.

Findings from Local Commissioner's Report:

The Local Commissioner's report identified 24 infringing parts of the Couplers at the defendants' premises and also listed the machinery used for manufacturing the Couplers.

Photographs of the infringing goods were taken, and the industrial drawings/designs of the Couplers were seized and handed over to the defendants.

Court's Observations and Conclusion:

The ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted merely on the basis of the fact that the defendant was a former employee and had applied for a railway tender, without any prima facie finding of design infringement.

The 'imminent threat of substantial damages', which was the basis for granting the quia timet action, is no longer present as the tender in question has concluded.

The plaintiff has not been able to demonstrate how the products photographed by the Local Commissioner infringe the plaintiff's registered designs, despite having access to the seized designs.

In the absence of any prima facie proof of infringement, the court concluded that the ad-interim injunction cannot be sustained any longer and vacated the order dated 5th July, 2018.

Case Citation: Escorts Ltd Vs Sudhir Kumar: 20.05.2024: CS(COMM) 271/2019: Delhi High Court: Prathiba M Singh: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Elanco Tieresundheit AG Vs Assitant Controller of Patent

This is a judgment from the High Court of Delhi in the case of Elanco Tiergesundheit AG versus The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, dated July 30, 2024. The case involves an appeal by Elanco Tiergesundheit AG against the rejection of their patent application for a method of preparing live vaccines by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The patent application, originally filed by Lohmann Animal Health Gmbh and later assigned to Elanco, was rejected on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act, 1970.

The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed mechanically, without proper consideration of their submissions. They pointed out that the Assistant Controller's order was a verbatim copy of the hearing notice, indicating a lack of independent reasoning. The respondent defended the rejection, citing the same grounds mentioned in the order.

Justice Mini Pushkarna, after reviewing the documents, found that the impugned order was indeed passed without independent reasoning, merely reproducing the contents of the hearing notice. The court noted that the respondent had not applied their mind to the appellant's submissions and had not provided a reasoned order. The court also emphasized the importance of recording reasons in decision-making as a basic tenet of natural justice, citing Supreme Court judgments.

The court set aside the impugned order and restored the patent application to its original position. The matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, with instructions to provide a reasoned order within four months. The court directed that the matter be heard by an officer other than the one who passed the impugned order.

Case Citation: Elanco Tieresundheit AG Vs Assitant Controller of Patent: 30.07.2024: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 479/2022: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited Vs. Zentech Pharmaceuticals

Trademark Infringement Case: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited Vs. Zentech Pharmaceuticals

Key Arguments and Insights:

Trademark Infringement:

The plaintiff, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, owns the registered trademark "ZEDEX" for its cough syrup product since 1983.

The defendant, Zentech Pharmaceuticals, has adopted a deceptively similar trademark "ZEEDUX" for its cough syrup product containing the same formulation.

The defendant's use of a phonetically similar trademark and copying the plaintiff's trade dress, packaging, color scheme, and layout is to impersonate the plaintiff's well-known "ZEDEX" brand and pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.

Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition:

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has copied the plaintiff's unique and distinctive trade dress, packaging, color scheme, get-up, and layout for its "ZEDEX" brand, which the defendant has adopted for its "ZEEDUX" product.

This is done with the malafide and dishonest intention to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's well-known "ZEDEX" trademark.

Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience:

The court has found that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case in its favor and that the balance of convenience is also in favor of the plaintiff.

The court has granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or using the trademark "ZEEDUX" or any other deceptively similar mark that may infringe the plaintiff's "ZEDEX" trademark.

Case Citation: Dr.Reddys Laboratories Vs Zentech Pharmaceuticals: 22.07.2024: CS(COMM) 588/2024: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]