Container Corporation of India Vs Shivalaya Construction

Maintainability of Appeal in Commercial Dispute against Order Rejecting Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

Background of the Case:

The case before the High Court of Delhi revolved around an appeal filed by Container Corporation of India Limited (the "Appellant") against an order dated November 16, 2022, passed by a learned Single Judge. The Appellant was the defendant in a suit instituted by M/S Shivalaya Construction Company Private Limited and another party (the "Respondents"). The primary contention of the Appellant before the Single Judge was that the Respondents' suit was barred by limitation, and accordingly, the Appellant had sought the dismissal of the suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC empowers a court to reject a plaint if, among other reasons, it is evident from the statements made in the plaint that the suit is barred by law, including the law of limitation. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Appellant's application seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation, leading to the filing of the present appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Issue of the Case:

The primary issue before the Division Bench of the High Court was the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Appellant under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Appellant challenged the rejection of its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that the Respondents' suit was time-barred and ought to have been dismissed.

In essence, the Court was tasked with determining whether an appeal could be sustained against an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the context of a commercial dispute governed by the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Contentions of the Parties:

Appellant's Contentions: The Appellant argued that the appeal was maintainable and placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D Kania & Anr. In this case, the Supreme Court had held that an appeal under the Letters Patent could be maintained against certain interlocutory orders, even if the order was not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.

The Appellant argued that, notwithstanding the absence of specific provisions in Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC allowing an appeal against the rejection of an Order VII Rule 11 application, the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) route was available for the present case.

Respondents' Contentions: While the document does not specifically detail the Respondents' arguments, it can be inferred that the Respondents opposed the appeal’s maintainability. They likely argued that the appeal was barred by the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, specifically under Section 13, which restricts the scope of appeals in commercial disputes to only those orders expressly enumerated as appealable under the CPC or other statutes.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

The Court's attention was focused on the following key issues:

Maintainability of Appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015: The core issue was whether the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was appealable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Section 13(1A) of the Act allows appeals from orders of Commercial Courts only if the order is specifically enumerated as appealable under the CPC or any other law.

Applicability of the Letters Patent: The Appellant invoked the doctrine of Letters Patent to argue that the appeal was maintainable under the Letters Patent of the High Court. However, the Court had to examine whether the non-obstante clause in Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act barred such recourse to the Letters Patent.

Precedents Governing Maintainability: The Court relied on precedents, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kandla Export Corporation & Another v. OCI Corporation & Another, which interpreted Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. The Supreme Court had made it clear that the scope of appealable orders under the Commercial Courts Act was restricted, and only those orders enumerated under the CPC or other statutes could be appealed.

Reasoning and Final Decision:

The Court extensively examined the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and relevant judicial precedents to arrive at its conclusion.

Scope of Appeals under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act: The Court noted that Section 13(1A) of the Act clearly limits the right of appeal in commercial disputes to orders expressly mentioned as appealable under the CPC or any other applicable law. The rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was not among the orders specifically enumerated as appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC or under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

Precedent from Kandla Export Corporation: The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kandla Export Corporation to fortify its reasoning. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that appeals in commercial disputes were restricted by the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, and the non-obstante clause in Section 13(2) of the Act barred recourse to the Letters Patent.

Applicability of Letters Patent: The Court dismissed the Appellant's reliance on Shah Babulal Khimji, holding that the doctrine of Letters Patent was not applicable in light of the Commercial Courts Act. The Act contains a non-obstante clause in Section 13(2), which explicitly overrides any other law to the contrary, including the Letters Patent.

Additionally, the Court referred to a Coordinate Bench's decision in Odeon Builders Private Limited v. NBCC (India) Limited, where it was held that the Letters Patent route is unavailable due to the overriding effect of Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act.

Previous Division Bench Decisions: The Court also referred to its own previous decision in Bhushan Oil and Fats Private Limited v. Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Private Limited, where a similar issue of maintainability was dealt with. In that case, the Division Bench had dismissed an appeal on identical grounds, holding that no appeal lay from an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a commercial dispute.

Conclusion:

In light of the above reasoning, the Court held that the appeal was not maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The rejection of the Appellant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC did not fall within the category of orders that could be appealed under the provisions of the CPC, the Arbitration Act, or any other statute governing commercial disputes. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that the right of appeal in commercial disputes is limited and only those orders expressly enumerated as appealable can be challenged before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.

Case Citation: Container Corporation of India Vs Shivalaya Construction: 21.08.2024:FAO(OS) (COMM) 43/2023: 2024:DHC6539-DB:Delhi High Court:Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 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.

Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr. Reddy's Laboratories

Trademark Infringement against prior user

Background of the Case:

The case before us is a trademark infringement dispute between Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. & ANR. (the respondents). The appellant is a private limited company incorporated on 06.03.2017, which has been using the trademark 'REBAHEAL' since July 2019 for its pharmaceutical products. The respondents are a leading pharmaceutical company that applied to register the trademark 'REBAHEAL' on a 'proposed to be used' basis in February 2023.

Issue of the Case:

The central issue in this case is the alleged infringement of the trademark 'REBAHEAL' by the appellant. The respondents claim that the appellant's use of the trademark is infringing upon their rights, as they had adopted the mark in June 2023. The appellant, on the other hand, contends that they are the prior user of the trademark and that the respondents are aware of their use of the mark.

Contentions of the Parties:

The appellant argues that they have been using the trademark 'REBAHEAL' since 2019 and have produced evidence to support this claim, including invoices and the availability of their products on websites. They also allege that the respondents did not conduct a proper search before filing the suit and did not serve a Cease-and-Desist notice upon becoming aware of the appellant's use of the trademark.

The respondents claim that they conducted adequate searches before filing the suit, including with the Registrar of Trademarks and a Google search, which did not reveal the appellant's use of the trademark. They also argue that the appellant's products were not available on the website '1mg.com' at the relevant time.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

The court had to determine whether the appellant was the prior user of the trademark 'REBAHEAL' and whether the respondents had taken reasonable steps to ascertain the existence of the trademark before filing their suit. Additionally, the court considered whether mediation should be referred to resolve the dispute.

Reason and Final Decision:

The court found that the appellant had produced sufficient material to indicate that they are the prior user of the trademark 'REBAHEAL'. It was also noted that the respondents had not initiated pre-institution mediation as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court set aside the impugned ex-parte ad interim order and stayed the proceedings before the learned Single Judge.

Case Citation: Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: 09.09.2024:FAO(OS) (COMM) 203/2024: 2024:DHC6926-DB:Delhi High Court:Vibhu Bakhru, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 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.

VIP Pharma Vs Rhydburg Pharma

Withdrawal of earlier Counter Claim without any liberty bars the Party to file a new case

Background of the Case:

The case involves a legal dispute between VIP Pharma and Rhydburg Pharma, with the former filing a suit against the latter in the Delhi High Court. The case revolves around allegations of trademark infringement, copyright violation, and unfair competition. VIP Pharma claims that Rhydburg Pharma has been selling products under a trademark that is identical or deceptively similar to VIP Pharma's trademark, causing harm to their business, trademark, copyright, goodwill, and reputation.

Issue of the Case:

The primary issue in the case is whether VIP Pharma's suit should be allowed to proceed, given that they had previously filed a Counter Claim in the District Court, which was later withdrawn. The defendant, Rhydburg Pharma, argues that the withdrawal of the Counter Claim without seeking permission to file a new case bars VIP Pharma from pursuing the present suit under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Contentions of the Parties:

VIP Pharma contends that the Counter Claim filed in the District Court was withdrawn due to insufficient pleadings and prayers, and they have now filed a more comprehensive suit in the High Court.

Rhydburg Pharma argues that the Counter Claim and the present suit involve the same parties, the same trademarks, the same averments, the same time periods, and the same causes of action. They assert that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of the withdrawal to file a new case without prior permission.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

The court had to determine whether the withdrawal of the Counter Claim by VIP Pharma precludes them from filing the present suit, considering the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 and Section 12 of the CPC, read with Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC. The court also had to consider whether the new suit is barred by law due to the earlier withdrawal.

Reasoning and Final Decision:

The court found that the Counter Claim and the present suit are essentially the same, with the new suit merely including additional claims that were omitted from the Counter Claim. The court held that the withdrawal of the Counter Claim without seeking permission to file a new case bars VIP Pharma from pursuing the present suit. The court relied on the principle that a plaintiff is barred from suing on a portion of a claim that was intentionally omitted or relinquished, unless they obtain leave of the court.

The court also noted that the plaintiff had not disputed the Vakalatnama (power of attorney) or the statement given by their counsel at the time of the withdrawal of the Counter Claim. Therefore, the court concluded that the present application of the defendant is liable to succeed, and the present suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

In its final decision, the court allowed the defendant's application and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, stating that the suit is barred by law due to the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC and Section 12 CPC. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's attempt to file a new case after withdrawing the Counter Claim without proper permission is not permissible under the law.

Case Citation: VIP Pharma Vs Rhydburg Pharma.: 13.09.2024:CS(COMM) 110/2023: 2024:DHC7042:Delhi High Court: Sarrabh Banerjee, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 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.

L'oreal Vs Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd

No actual proof of confusion is required to assess confusion between Trademarks

Background of the Case:

The case before us is L'Oreal vs. Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., which was heard by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai Circuit Bench at Mumbai. The case involves a dispute over the trademark rights between L'Oreal, the appellant, and Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., the respondent. L'Oreal is a well-established company with a global presence, engaged in the manufacture and sale of a wide range of hair care, skin care, toiletries, and beauty products. Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd. is also involved in the manufacturing and trading of cosmetics, toiletries, hair care products, and other related goods.

Issue of the Case:

The central issue in this case is whether the trademark "L'ORNELL," registered by Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., is deceptively similar to L'Oreal's trademark "L'OREAL," leading to potential confusion among consumers. L'Oreal contends that the similarity in the marks could deceive the public into believing that the products of Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd. are associated with or originate from L'Oreal.

Contentions of the Parties:

L'Oreal argues that it has been using the "L'OREAL" trademark since around 1910-1915 and has established a strong global presence, including in India. They claim that their trademark is well-known and that they have invested heavily in advertising and marketing their products under this mark. L'Oreal asserts that the mark "L'ORNELL" used by Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd. is phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to their trademark, which could lead to confusion in the market.

Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., on the other hand, had registered the trademark "L'ORNELL" and claimed user since 2006. They have not provided substantial evidence to counter L'Oreal's claims of deceptive similarity or to establish their independent rights to the mark.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

The court had to determine whether the trademarks "L'OREAL" and "L'ORNELL" are deceptively similar, considering the visual and phonetic aspects of the marks. Additionally, the court had to assess the evidence of actual confusion, the strength of L'Oreal's mark in the market, and the potential for dilution of L'Oreal's trademark.

Reason and Final Decision:

The court found that there was no evidence of actual confusion, which might be due to L'Oreal's trade not being of long standing in the specific market context. However, the court held that the marks were deceptively similar phonetically, as they have great phonetic similarity and are indistinguishable in sound and pronunciation. The court also noted that L'Oreal's mark has a strong presence in India and is well-known in the market.

The court ultimately ruled in favor of L'Oreal, allowing their appeal and dismissing Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd.'s application for registration of the "L'ORNELL" trademark. The court ordered the removal of the impugned trademark from the register, citing the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The decision highlights the importance of maintaining the purity of the trademark register and preventing the registration of marks that are deceptively similar to existing well-known trademarks.

Case Citation: L'oreal Vs Sarvodaya Overseas Pvt. Ltd.: 09.09.2024:ORA/269/2010/TM/MUM: IPAB: Manmohan Singh, H.J.

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 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.

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Abbott Laboratories

The intent and manner of the Advertisement is critical in disparagement cases

Background of the Case:

Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) filed a suit against Abbott Laboratories and others (Defendants) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, specifically in its Commercial Division. The case pertains to an alleged disparagement of HUL's product, 'Horlicks Diabetes Plus,' by the Defendants through an advertisement (Impugned Advertisement) for their product, 'Ensure Diabetes Care.' The Impugned Advertisement was circulated on the WhatsApp platform and other channels, showing a female protagonist, dressed as an expert, pushing away the Plaintiff's product in favor of the Defendants'.

Issue of the Case:

The central issue is whether the Impugned Advertisement disparages and denigrates HUL's product, thereby causing harm to its market reputation and goodwill. HUL contends that the advertisement is a deliberate attempt to create a negative impression of its product, which is not permissible under the law.

Contentions of the Parties:

HUL argues that the Impugned Advertisement is a clear case of disparagement as it not only promotes the Defendants' product but also implies that HUL's product is inferior. They allege that despite reaching out to the Defendants to address the issue, no action was taken, leading to the filing of the suit.

The Defendants have not provided their contentions in the provided document excerpts, but it is presumed they would argue the validity and legality of their advertising practices.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

The court considered the principles of disparagement in advertising, the intent and manner of the Impugned Advertisement, and the potential harm to HUL's product reputation. It also addressed the urgency of granting ad-interim relief without notice to the Defendants to prevent further dissemination of the Impugned Advertisement.

Reason and Final Decision:

The court found that the Impugned Advertisement prima facie disparages HUL's product and that the Defendants' conduct in not responding to HUL's concerns was indicative of a potential for further harm. The court granted interim relief to HUL, including an injunction against the Defendants to prevent further circulation of the Impugned Advertisement and to take steps to recall and delete it. The court also directed the Defendants to issue a communication to recipients that the advertisement was issued in error and to instruct them to delete it.

The court's decision is based on the well-established principles that while advertisers have the freedom to promote their products, they must not disparage or defame competitors' products.

Case Citation:Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Abbott Laboratories: 05.09.2024:Commercial IPR Suit No. 27527 of 2024: Bombay High Court: R.I.Chagla HJ

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 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.

Nokia Corporation Vs Bharat Bhogilal

The burden of proof in patent infringement cases, lies with the party alleging infringement.

Background of the Case:

The case before us is Nokia Corporation vs. Bharat Bhogilal Patel, with case number CS(OS)No.3071-2011, heard in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The date of the decision is 28th May, 2014. Nokia Corporation, the plaintiff, filed a suit against Bharat Bhogilal Patel, the defendant, seeking a declaration of non-infringement, restraining groundless threats of infringement proceedings, and damages. The case involves allegations of patent infringement related to Nokia's products and processes.

Issue of the Case:

The central issue in this case is whether Nokia Corporation has infringed upon the patents held by Bharat Bhogilal Patel. Specifically, the defendant alleges that Nokia's products and processes infringe upon his patent rights, and he has made representations to various authorities, including the Customs department, to enforce his patents against Nokia and other importers.

Contentions of the Parties:

Nokia Corporation, the plaintiff, contends that the defendant has issued groundless threats of patent infringement and has failed to substantiate his claims with evidence. They argue that the defendant's actions are without merit and are causing harm to Nokia's reputation and business operations.

Bharat Bhogilal Patel, the defendant, contends that Nokia's products and processes infringe upon his patents. He has sought to enforce his patent rights through various legal channels, including representations to the Customs department and other government bodies.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

The court addressed several key issues in this case:

The burden of proof in patent infringement cases, which lies with the party alleging infringement.

The defendant's failure to provide evidence to support his claims of infringement.

The legality of the defendant's actions in seeking to enforce his patent rights through the Customs department without a judicial determination of infringement.

The validity of the defendant's patents, which have faced challenges and revocation petitions from various parties.

Reasoning and Final Decision:

The court reasoned that the defendant had failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish patent infringement. There was no evidence provided to support the claims made against Nokia Corporation. The court also found that the defendant's actions in attempting to enforce his patent rights through the Customs department without a judicial determination of infringement were illegal and constituted groundless threats.

The court further considered the challenges to the validity of the defendant's patents and the revocation orders issued by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. It was noted that the defendant's patents lacked novelty and inventive step, which are essential for patentability.

In its final decision, the court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, Nokia Corporation. The court confirmed the order dated 28.05.2014, granting a declaration of non-infringement, restraining the groundless threat of infringement proceedings by the defendant, and awarding damages. The operation of the complaint dated 29.09.2010 filed by the defendant against Nokia was stayed.

Case Citation:Nokia Corporation Vs Bharat Bhogilal: 2805.2014:CS(OS) 3071/2011: 2014:DHC:2900:Delhi High Court: G.S.Shishtani JJ

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 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.

Deepak Bajaj Vs State of Maharashtra

Background of the Case:

The case before us is "Deepak Bajaj Vs State of Maharashtra," which was decided on November 12, 2008, by the Supreme Court of India. The bench consisted of Hon'ble Judges Altamas Kabir and Markandey Katju. The case involves a challenge to a detention order passed against the petitioner, Deepak Gopaldas Bajaj, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).

Issue of the Case:

The primary issue in the case is the legality of the detention order passed against Deepak Bajaj. The petitioner contended that the detention order should be quashed because the relevant material was not placed before the Detaining Authority when the order was passed. This, according to the petitioner, vitiates the detention order.

Contention of Parties:

The petitioner, Deepak Bajaj, argued that the detention order was illegal because the Detaining Authority did not have all the relevant facts before it when making the decision. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that certain retractions of statements made to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) were not considered by the Detaining Authority.

The respondents, represented by the State of Maharashtra, contended that the petition should not be entertained because it was filed at a pre-execution stage, before the petitioner had surrendered or was arrested. They also argued that the grounds for challenging the detention order were not exhaustive and that the Detaining Authority had the necessary information to make an informed decision.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

The court addressed several issues in this case. Firstly, it considered whether the High Court and the Supreme Court have the power to review a detention order at the pre-execution stage. The court held that there is no restriction on the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court to review judicially the order of detention under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India.

Secondly, the court examined the principle that a judgment should be read in the context of the facts of the case and not as a statute. It emphasized that precedents should be followed only to the extent that they mark the path of justice and that courts should avoid treating judicial utterances as if they were words in a legislative enactment.

Thirdly, the court discussed the importance of personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and the need to maintain it unimpaired. It also highlighted the duty of the authorities to place all relevant materials before the Detaining Authority to ensure a fair and informed decision-making process.

Reason and Final Decision:

The court reasoned that the detention order was illegal because the Detaining Authority did not consider the retractions of statements made by the petitioner, which were relevant and should have been placed before the Detaining Authority. The court found that the non-placement of these materials vitiated the detention order, making it invalid and illegal.

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned detention order dated May 22, 2008. The court's decision underscores the importance of due process and the right to personal liberty, and it serves as a reminder that judicial decisions must be contextual and consider all relevant facts before reaching a conclusion.

Case Citation: Deepak Bajaj Vs State of Maharashtra:AIR2009SC628

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 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.

Deepak Bajaj Vs State of Maharashtra

A judgment should be read in the context of the facts of the case and not as a statute

Background of the Case:

The case involves a challenge to a detention order passed against the petitioner, Deepak Gopaldas Bajaj, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).

Issue of the Case:

The primary issue in the case is the legality of the detention order passed against Deepak Bajaj. The petitioner contended that the detention order should be quashed because the relevant material was not placed before the Detaining Authority when the order was passed. This, according to the petitioner, vitiates the detention order.

Contention of Parties:

The petitioner, Deepak Bajaj, argued that the detention order was illegal because the Detaining Authority did not have all the relevant facts before it when making the decision. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that certain retractions of statements made to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) were not considered by the Detaining Authority.

The respondents, represented by the State of Maharashtra, contended that the petition should not be entertained because it was filed at a pre-execution stage, before the petitioner had surrendered or was arrested. They also argued that the grounds for challenging the detention order were not exhaustive and that the Detaining Authority had the necessary information to make an informed decision.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

The court addressed several issues in this case. Firstly, it considered whether the High Court and the Supreme Court have the power to review a detention order at the pre-execution stage. The court held that there is no restriction on the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court to review judicially the order of detention under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India.

Secondly, the court examined the principle that a judgment should be read in the context of the facts of the case and not as a statute. It emphasized that precedents should be followed only to the extent that they mark the path of justice and that courts should avoid treating judicial utterances as if they were words in a legislative enactment.

Thirdly, the court discussed the importance of personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and the need to maintain it unimpaired. It also highlighted the duty of the authorities to place all relevant materials before the Detaining Authority to ensure a fair and informed decision-making process.

Reason and Final Decision:

The court reasoned that the detention order was illegal because the Detaining Authority did not consider the retractions of statements made by the petitioner, which were relevant and should have been placed before the Detaining Authority. The court found that the non-placement of these materials vitiated the detention order, making it invalid and illegal.

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned detention order dated May 22, 2008. The court's decision underscores the importance of due process and the right to personal liberty, and it serves as a reminder that judicial decisions must be contextual and consider all relevant facts before reaching a conclusion.

Case Citation: Deepak Bajaj Vs State of Maharashtra:AIR2009SC628

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 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.

Bhupinder Jain Versus Sachdeva & Sons

In case of faulty advertisement , the Trademark has to be re advertised in Trademark Journal

Background of the Case:

The case before us is Bhupinder Jain vs Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd., which was heard by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in Chennai Circuit Bench at New Delhi. The case involves a dispute over the trademark "UDAN PARI" and other related marks used in the processing and marketing of rice. The appellant, Bhupinder Jain, and his family are engaged in this business. The respondent is Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Issue of the Case:

The primary issue in the case revolves around the assignment and transfer of the trademark "UDAN PARI" from Bhupinder Jain trading as M/s Mahaveer Rice Traders to M/s Jain Riceland Pvt. Ltd., a company in which Bhupinder Jain is a director. The appellant sought to amend the name and address in the appeal documents to reflect this change. Additionally, there was a discrepancy in the publication of the trademark in the Trade Marks Journal, where the impugned mark was applied for as a label mark but was erroneously published as a word mark.

Contentions of the Parties:

The appellant contended that the assignment of the trademark was a bona fide transaction and that the amendment to the name and address was necessary to reflect the current ownership. They also argued that the error in the publication of the trademark as a word mark instead of a label mark required rectification to avoid future litigation.

The respondent objected to the appellant's miscellaneous petitions, arguing that they were an attempt to delay the final adjudication of the matter and to raise new issues at a belated stage. They also challenged the validity of the assignment deed, claiming it was a sham document and that the appellant's main application had already been dismissed by the Registrar.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

The IPAB had to consider several issues, including the validity of the assignment of the trademark, the propriety of the miscellaneous petitions filed by the appellant, and the error in the publication of the trademark in the journal.

Reason and Final Decision:

The IPAB found that the error in publishing the trademark as a word mark instead of a label mark was a serious issue that needed to be rectified. They ruled that the impugned mark must be re-advertised to avoid potential litigation. Regarding the assignment of the trademark, the Board allowed the amendment to reflect the new ownership but expressed concerns about the appellant's conduct, given the multiple miscellaneous petitions filed and the delay in approaching the Board for amendments.

In conclusion, the IPAB's decision highlights the importance of accurate publication of trademarks and the need for parties to act in good faith and with due diligence in legal proceedings.

Case Citation: Bhupinder Jain Versus Sachdeva & Sons: 2013 (54) PTC 204 (IPAB):

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com, Phone: 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.