Mr. R Arun Vs Integray Health Care

Case Details:

The petitioners filed an Original Petition under Section 19 read with Section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000, seeking the cancellation of the registration of a design (Design No. 400027-001) granted to the first respondent by the fourth respondent. The petitioners argued that the Designs Act, 2000 does not explicitly oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, and thus, their petition for design cancellation should be maintainable before the court.

Arguments and Submissions:

Petitioners Argument:

The Designs Act, 2000 is not a complete code and refers to the Patents Act, 1970.

There is no express ouster of the court's jurisdiction in the Designs Act, 2000.

Compared other intellectual property acts (Trademarks Act, 1999, Copyright Act, 1957, Patents Act, 1970, and Geographical Indication Act, 1999) which allow for applications to be made to the High Court.

It would be unfair to direct the petitioner to Kolkata for cancellation when both parties are in Chennai.

Respondents' Argument:

The High Court is the appellate forum against the Controller's order under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000.

The court cannot act as a Controller and decide on the cancellation of registration.

Judgment:

The court held that the Original Petition is not maintainable as per Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000, which mandates that petitions for cancellation of design registration be made to the Controller.

The court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to move the jurisdictional Controller within 60 days, with instructions to the Controller to consider the application on its merits without delay.

Conclusion:

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the Original Petition for design cancellation, directing the petitioner to approach the Controller having jurisdiction. The court clarified that under the Designs Act, 2000, the jurisdiction for cancellation of design registration lies with the Controller, and an appeal from the Controller's order can be made to the High Court.

Case Citation:Mr. R Arun Vs Integray Health Care:11.07.2024 : OP (PT) No.2 of 2024: Madras High Court: P.B.Balaji: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,
Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

TTK Prestige Ltd. Vs Baghla Sanitaryware

Case Background:

TTK Prestige Limited filed a suit against Baghla Sanitaryware Private Limited & Ors. for infringement of their registered trademark 'PRESTIGE' and copyright infringement of the PRESTIGE logo. The plaintiff claimed continuous, extensive, and exclusive use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' in relation to kitchenware since 1955 and adopted a distinctive logo with an arc in 1999. The defendants were found using the trademark 'PRESTIGE' in their business of manufacturing and selling sanitaryware, leading to the plaintiff's legal action.

Issue:

The plaintiff sought to place additional documents on record to support their claim of prior use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 1955. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff's application was belated and an attempt to introduce documents that should have been filed earlier.

Ground:

The plaintiff, TTK Prestige Limited, sought to place additional documents on record on several grounds:

Rebuttal to Defendants' Documents: The plaintiff claimed that the additional documents were necessary to rebut the documents filed by the defendants. The defendants had filed documents to support their claim of using the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 2005, and the plaintiff sought to counter this with evidence of their prior use.

Discovery of New Documents: The plaintiff stated that they had discovered relevant documents from a previously disposed-of suit (Suit No. 289/08/1991) after the defendants filed their written statement. These documents, which were part of the evidence in the prior suit, were now sought to be placed on record to support their claim of continuous and exclusive use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 1955.

Compliance with Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC: The plaintiff relied on the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows for the filing of additional documents with the leave of the court if reasonable cause for non-disclosure is established. The plaintiff argued that the test of "reasonable cause" was satisfied as they had searched for and discovered these documents after the defendants' claims and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants since the trial had not yet commenced.

Precedent Set by the Court: The plaintiff pointed out that the Court had allowed the defendants' application for additional documents (I.A. 14694/2022) on 27th February, 2023. They argued that the same principles should apply to their application, given the similar circumstances and the need for procedural fairness.

Necessity to Establish Prior Use: The plaintiff emphasized the necessity of the additional documents to establish their prior use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 1955, which was crucial to their case against the defendants' claim of use since 2005.

In summary, the plaintiff's grounds for seeking to place additional documents on record included the need to rebut the defendants' claims, the discovery of new evidence, compliance with legal provisions, following established precedents, and the necessity to prove their case.

Judgment:

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC to place additional documents on record. The Court found that the plaintiff had multiple opportunities to file relevant documents and that their application was belated. The Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the deadlines imposed by the Commercial Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Legal Precedents:

The Court referred to decisions such as Sugandhi & Anr. v. P. Rajkumar, Vijay Kumar Varshney v. Longlast Power Products Ltd. & Anr., and CEC-CICI JV & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited to highlight the importance of procedural compliance and the strict interpretation of deadlines in commercial suits.

Conclusion:

The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in its judgment, underscored the significance of procedural compliance and the need for parties to diligently file all relevant documents within the prescribed deadlines. The Court's decision serves as a reminder of the strict adherence required to the Commercial Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure in commercial disputes

Case Citation: TTK Prestige Ltd. Vs Baghla Sanitaryware:07.02.2024 : CS(COMM) 281/2021: 2024: DHC:1149: Delhi High Court: Anish Dayal: H.J.

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

Sonoo Jaiswal Vs Oracle America

Background:

Oracle America Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of California, USA, and part of the Oracle Group of companies, filed a suit against Sonoo Jaiswal and Others for trademark infringement and passing off. The suit sought a permanent injunction against the use of the trademark "JAVATPOINT" and the domain name "www.javatpoint.com," alleging that these infringe Oracle's trademark "JAVA." Oracle also sought damages and other reliefs.

Issues:

Whether the use of "JAVA" in the domain name "www.javatpoint.com" constitutes trademark infringement.

Whether the use of the trademark "JAVATPOINT" amounts to passing off.

Judgment:

The High Court of Delhi upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, finding that the use of "JAVA" in the domain name "www.javatpoint.com" and the trademark "JAVATPOINT" infringed Oracle's trademark "JAVA." The Court reasoned that the domain name and trademark were likely to cause confusion among internet users, leading them to believe that there was an association between the appellants and Oracle. The Court also noted that the appellants had changed their corporate names to "TPOINT Global Ltd." and "TPOINT Tech Pvt. Ltd.," but this did not affect the infringement of the domain name.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was upheld. The Court found that the use of "JAVA" in the domain name and trademark by the appellants constituted an infringing use, and there was no ground to interfere with the learned Single Judge's decision.

Key Legal Points:

The Court emphasized that a domain name, which incorporates a trademark, can serve as a business identifier and may lead to trademark infringement if it causes confusion among users.

The Court referred to the Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd. case, which established that domain names can be subject to trademark law principles, including passing off.

The Court also cited the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) policy, which prohibits the registration of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks.

Outcome:

The appeal by Sonoo Jaiswal and Others was dismissed, and the injunction against the use of "JAVA" in their domain name and trademark was upheld.

Case Citation: Sonoo Jaiswal Vs Oracle America:09.07.2024 : FAO(OS) (COMM) 98/2024: 2024 DHC:5168: Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Dutta: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Sanchit Gupta Vs Union of India

Factual Background:

Sanchit Gupta, an IT Consultant, had his social media account suspended by X Corp. without prior notice or explanation. This suspension led to a loss of advertising revenue and alleged shadow banning, prompting Gupta to file a writ petition alleging a breach of natural justice, equity, and fairness.

Issues Raised:

The petitioner argues that the suspension of his account by X Corp. violates his fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, including freedom of speech and expression, assembly, and association.

Gupta claims that X Corp. performs a 'public function' and is thus amenable to constitutional scrutiny, despite being a private entity.

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Union of India to enforce the Information Technology Act, 2000, and related rules against X Corp.

Judgment:

Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the writ petition, stating that the allegations are primarily against a private entity, X Corp., and that the petitioner's recourse should be through civil litigation for breach of contract rather than constitutional violation. The court found that X Corp. does not perform a 'public function' as defined under Article 226, and thus, the writ petition is not maintainable. The court also noted that there was no evidence of neglect or failure to act by the Union of India to justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

Conclusion:

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the proper legal recourse for the petitioner would be through civil courts for contractual disputes. The judgment underscores the distinction between private entities' actions and constitutional violations, and the limited scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for private entities not performing 'public functions'.

Case Citation: Sachit Gupta Vs Union of India:23.07.2024 : 2024:W.P.(C) 10030/2024: DHC:5723: Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Sai Trading Company Vs KRBL Limited

The appeal was filed challenging an order dated 16th May, 2017, which restrained the appellant from using the trademark "GOLDEN GATE" in relation to rice and other goods. The appellant's counsel sought discharge from appearance due to failed mediation and lack of instructions from the appellant.

Key Developments:

The appellant's counsel repeatedly sought discharge from appearance, citing failed mediation and lack of instructions.

The Court issued notices to the appellant, which were returned unserved, indicating the appellant's disinterest in pursuing the appeal.

The respondent's counsel highlighted the prolonged pendency of the matter, the costs incurred by the respondent, and the judicial time consumed.

Decision:

The Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and default, noting the appellant's lack of interest and the repeated failures to pursue the case effectively. The Court imposed a cost of ₹10 lacs payable by the appellant to the respondent within eight weeks.

he appeal filed by M/S SAI TRADING COMPANY was dismissed due to the following reasons:

Non-Prosecution: The appellant demonstrated a clear lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The repeated failures to provide instructions to their counsel and the repeated requests for discharge from appearance indicated that the appellant was not actively engaging with the legal process.

Lack of Appearance: The appellant did not take any steps to appear before the court, either personally or through another counsel, despite being issued notices by the court. The notices sent to the appellant were returned unserved, as the appellant could not be located at the provided address.

Failed Mediation: The court noted that mediation attempts between the parties had repeatedly failed. The appellant's counsel informed the court that the mediation process had not yielded any results, further indicating the appellant's disinterest in resolving the matter.

Judicial Time and Costs: The respondent's counsel highlighted that the matter had been pending since 2017 and had already gone through 36 hearings. The respondent had incurred various costs in defending the appeal, including the engagement of a Senior Advocate on multiple occasions. The court took note of the substantial judicial time and resources that had been consumed due to the appellant's negligence.

Precedent and Guidelines: The court referred to previous judgments and guidelines related to the imposition of costs in commercial matters. These judgments emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and the need to penalize parties who waste judicial time and resources.

Case Citation: Sai Trading Company Vs KRBL Limited:29.07.2024 : W.P.(C) 10030/2024: 2024:DHC:5864-DB: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

RC Plasto Vs Ganesh Gauri Indistries-DB

This is a judgment delivered on August 5, 2024, by the High Court of Delhi in the case of RFA(OS)(IPD) 1/2023, involving R. C. Plasto Tanks and Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) and Ganesh Gouri Industries & ANR (the respondent). The appellant challenged the copyright registration of the respondent's artwork titled "Gauri Aqua Plast" (Label), registered under No. A-142047/2022, claiming it to be a colorable imitation of their own registered trademark "Plasto" and artistic label registration A-142461/2022.

The appellant argued that there was a substantial similarity between the competing artistic works and that the respondent was aware of the appellant's marks, having given an undertaking in a previous suit not to use similar marks. The appellant also emphasized their prior use of the "Plasto" artwork and the settlement reached in the previous suit, which included the respondent's agreement not to use certain marks.

The respondent's counsel argued that there was no similarity between the works and that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the respondent's copyright was not original.

The court, in its analysis, referred to the Copyright Act, 1957, and the principles of copyright infringement, noting that the test for infringement is the visual appearance and the overall impression of the work. The court found that the works were not identical and that the only common feature was the word "PLAST," which is a derivative of "Plastic." The court also considered the undertaking given by the respondent in the previous suit but concluded that the appellant could not benefit from it in this case due to the distinctiveness of the competing works.

The court held that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent's work was a colorable imitation or substantial reproduction of the appellant's copyright. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the impugned judgment, and upheld the copyright registration of the respondent.

Case Citation: RC Plasto Vs Ganesh Gauri Indistries-DB:05.08.2024 : RFA(OS)(IPD) 1/2023: 2024:DHC:5787-DB: Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan. H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

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]