KRBL Limited Vs Rajesh Kejriwal

In the High Court of Delhi, KRBL Limited filed a case against Rajesh Kejriwal, trading as Chemical Centre India, and another respondent. The case, numbered C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 502/2022, was heard before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The petitioner sought to introduce certain documents into the record, including extracts from the respondent's website and third-party sites, GST details, and information about the petitioner's products under the trademark INDIA GATE with a device of a gate.

The outcome of the petitioner's application to bring certain documents on record is that the court accepted some of the documents while rejecting others. The documents accepted by the court are:

Extracts from the respondent's own website (www.goldengate.co.in), which displayed goods bearing the impugned mark "Golden Gate" with a device of "India Gate."

Statutory documents, such as the GST details of the Respondent No. 1.

Court orders passed by the Delhi High Court and Delhi District Courts in favor of the Petitioner regarding the trademark "INDIA GATE with Device of INDIA GATE."

The court allowed these documents to be brought on record, subject to the respondent's right to challenge their authenticity and relevance during the final adjudication of the cancellation petition.

However, the application to introduce the remaining documents, which included extracts from the third-party website Indiamart, information about the petitioner's range of products, and invoices showing sales of "INDIA GATE Bran oil," was rejected because the petitioner did not demonstrate the relevance of these documents to the current proceedings.

Case Citation: KRBL Limited Vs Rajesh Kejriwal:30.07.2024 : CO COMM.IPD-TM 502/2022: Delhi High Court: Saurabh Banerjee. H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Irvinder Kaur Chadha Vs Garnish Electronics

The petitioner filed a rectification petition seeking the removal of the trademark 'GARNISH' registered in favor of Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) under Application no. 2342492 in Class 11. The petitioner argued that the trademark registration had expired and the statutory grace period for renewal had also passed.

The Court noted that the respondent had been validly served through their Trademark Agent. The petitioner had made several attempts to serve the respondent with the petition documents, but the attempts were unsuccessful as the respondent's address was found to be incorrect.

The Court observed that the trademark in question had expired on 04.06.2022, and the one-year grace period for renewal under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 had elapsed. The Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 2) had issued a notice to the respondent about the expiry of the trademark, but no action was taken within the grace period.

The Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry of the impugned mark from the Register of Trade Marks. The petitioner's rights and contentions on the merits of the dispute were kept open. The Registry was instructed to inform the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks about the order for compliance.

The High Court of Delhi ordered the removal of the expired trademark 'GARNISH' from the Register of Trade Marks, emphasizing the importance of timely renewal and the legal consequences of failing to do so.

Case Citation: Irvinder Kaur Chadha Vs Garnish Electronics:30.07.2024 : Irvinder Kaur Chadha Vs Garnish Electronics: 2024: DHC:5772: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna. H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

IFKO Tokio General Vs Inder Travels

The plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit on January 25, 2017, seeking a decree of Rs. 22,47,00,000/- against the defendants for their failure to remit payments for airline tickets and other services purchased on credit. In response, the defendants denied liability and challenged the reliability of the BSP Agent Billing Statement. To bolster their case, the plaintiffs sought permission to introduce additional documents as evidence.

The documents in question include legal authorizations (such as a Power of Attorney), governmental statutes, operational evidence (including screenshots), communications between legal representatives, and printouts of webpage screenshots.

The plaintiffs argued that these documents are essential to substantiate their claims, counter the defendants' arguments, and provide crucial context and evidence necessary for a full understanding of the case. The Court permitted the plaintiffs to file these additional documents, including the Power of Attorney, a Canadian statute, webpage screenshots, and certain resolutions from the Travel Agent's Handbook.

The Court noted that when filing documents at a later stage, the plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable cause for not disclosing these documents along with the initial Plaint. However, the requirement to establish a reasonable cause for nondisclosure does not apply if the plaintiff claims that the documents were discovered subsequently and were not within the plaintiff's power, possession, control, or custody at the time the Plaint was filed.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that at the stage of granting leave to submit additional documents, it is not necessary to assess the genuineness of these documents; the authenticity of the documents is to be determined during the trial.

The Court underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for the plaintiffs to establish a reasonable cause for the late filing of documents.

Case Citation: IFKO Tokio General Vs Inder Travels:01.08.2024 : CS(COMM) 166/2017: 2024: DHC:5632: Delhi High Court:Navin Chawla. H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Ganesh Gouri Vs R.C.Plasto-DB

The High Court of Delhi delivered a judgment on August 5, 2024, in the case of M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries and others versus R. C. Plasto Tanks and Pipes Pvt. Ltd. The appellants, Ganesh Gouri, challenged an order from the Commercial Court that granted an injunction against them, preventing the use of certain labels and color schemes that allegedly infringed on Plasto's trademarks.

Ganesh Gouri, a partnership firm, manufactures plastic tanks, water tanks, pipes, and fittings, using the trademarks "AQUA PLAST" and "GAURI AQUA PLAST." Plasto, part of the Plasto Group, adopted the trademark "PLASTO" in 1981 and filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Ganesh Gouri for using a similar label/device/color scheme.

The Commercial Court granted an ex-parte injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods from Ganesh Gouri. A previous suit between the parties was settled with a compromise decree in 2018, allowing Ganesh Gouri to use "AQUA PLAST" but not "PLASTO" or similar taglines.

The appellants argued that the present suit was an act of forum shopping, as Plasto had failed to secure an injunction in the Nagpur suit. They also contended that the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction since Plasto's sales within the court's territorial limits were minimal.

The High Court disagreed with Ganesh Gouri's contentions, stating that a fresh cause of action allows for a new suit, and the Nagpur suit was based on different marks and had been settled. The Court also found that Plasto had a virtual and physical business presence within the Commercial Court's jurisdiction, supporting its territorial jurisdiction.

Regarding the deceptive similarity of the trademarks, the Court held that the Commercial Court erred in finding Ganesh Gouri's marks to be deceptively similar to Plasto's. The Court emphasized that the overall impression of the marks should be considered, and the presence of the word "PLAST" alone, which is a derivative of "plastic," does not constitute infringement. The Court also noted that the background color, sky blue, is commonly associated with water and cannot be monopolized.

The High Court set aside the Commercial Court's order, concluding that the appellants' marks were distinctive and did not infringe on Plasto's trademarks. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and for the purpose of deciding the appeal against the injunction order.

Case Citation: Ganesh Gouri Vs R.C.Plasto-DB:05.08.2024 : FAO (COMM) 54/2022: 2024: DHC:5788-DB: Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan. H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Vs Kovex Life Sciences

This is an order issued by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited & Another vs. Kovex Life Sciences & Others, dated August 5, 2024. The case centers on a dispute over intellectual property rights, specifically involving allegations of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, trade dress violations, passing off, unfair competition, and related issues.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants have been marketing pharmaceutical products under the marks "CERVIFINE" and "MET-OVEX," which are deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks "CERVIFERT" and "MET-PCO."

The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants have intentionally substituted the letters “INE” with “ERT” in "CERVIFERT" to create the impugned mark "CERVIFINE." Similarly, the defendants have replaced “PCO” with “OVEX” in "MET-PCO" to form the impugned mark "MET-OVEX." Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants have attempted to replicate their trade dress.

The plaintiffs assert that their trademarks have been in continuous use since their adoption and have gained secondary meaning, goodwill, and a strong reputation in the market. They argue that the defendants' actions amount to trademark infringement and passing off, which could cause consumer confusion and result in irreparable damage to their brand. In response to these allegations, the court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks.

Case Citation: Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Vs Kovex Life Sciences :05.08.2024 : CS(COMM) 648/2024: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna. H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Visa International Ltd Vs Visa International Service

This is a judgment from the High Court at Calcutta, Commercial Division, involving three separate but related appeals (IPDTMA No. 82 of 2023, IPDTMA No. 83 of 2023, and IPDTMA No. 1 of 2024) filed by Visa International Ltd., Garden Silk Mills Private Limited, and others against Visa International Service Association and other respondents.

The appeals challenge the authority of the Associate Manager, to pass certain orders in opposition proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The appellants argue that the Associate Manager,, who passed the impugned orders, was not authorized to do so as their appointments were contractual and limited to specific periods, which had expired by the time the orders were passed.

hey also contend that the organizational structure of the Trade Marks Registry does not include a post for Associate Manager, and the Recruitment Rules of 2011 do not mention such a position.

The respondents argue that the Associate Managers were appointed through a public notice and were authorized to hear contested matters and pass reasoned decisions. They also submit that the Central Government has the power to appoint officers of any designation to perform the functions of the Registrar under the Trade Marks Act.

The Hon'ble Court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, concludes that the Associate Managers were not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders as their appointments were contractual and limited in time.

Furthermore, the quasi-judicial functions under the Trade Marks Act are to be performed independently, not under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar. The court sets aside and quashes the impugned orders and remands the matters to the Registrar of Trade Marks for a fresh decision by a competent officer, with a directive to dispose of the matter within six months.

The judgment highlights the importance of proper authorization and the legal framework for the appointment of officers to pass quasi-judicial orders under the Trade Marks Act. It also underscores the principle that if there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction, the plea can be taken up at any stage and in collateral proceedings.

Case Citation: Visa International Ltd Vs Visa International Service. :02.08.2024 : IPDTMA No. 82 of 2023: Calcutta High Court: The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao. H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Terex India Private Limited Vs. CDE Asia Ltd

Background:

The appellant, Terex India Private Limited, filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the Deputy Controller of Patent and Designs' order dated 2nd March, 2023. This order refused the appellant's post-grant opposition for the revocation of Indian Patent No. 307249, granted to CDE Asia Ltd. on 12th February, 2019, for the invention titled "SYSTEM/DEVICE PROCESS FOR CLASSIFICATION OF VARIOUS MATERIALS."

Appellant's Arguments:

The appellant argued that the patent claims were not novel and were already in public use before the priority date. They also criticized the Deputy Controller's order for lacking independent reasoning and for merely reproducing the patentee's submissions without addressing the opposition's evidence.

Respondent's Arguments:

The respondents argued that the combination of known devices in their invention produced an unexpected effect, making it patentable. They also contended that the Deputy Controller's order should stand.

Findings:

The Court found that the Deputy Controller's order was arbitrary and lacked proper reasoning, making it difficult to ascertain how the officer applied their mind to reach the conclusion. The Court emphasized the importance of a speaking order in patent adjudication.

Decision:

The Court quashed and set aside the Deputy Controller's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by an officer other than the one who passed the impugned order. The reconsideration is to be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

Conclusion:

The High Court at Calcutta set aside the Deputy Controller's order and remanded the case for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a reasoned and speaking order in patent adjudication. The Court's decision underscores the importance of proper reasoning in patent decisions to ensure transparency and fairness in the patent opposition process.

Case Citation: Terex India Private Limited v. CDE Asia Ltd. :02.08.2024 : IPDAID 4 of 2024 : Calcutta High Court: The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao. H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

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]