Sanofi and another Vs Zanofi Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.

Use of Old Trade Name under Section 12 of Company Act

In a recent ruling by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the interpretation of Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013, regarding the display of old company names came under scrutiny in a case where the court had directed a defendant to change its name. This article provides a detailed analysis of the legal implications of the court's clarification and its impact on mandatory name change cases.

Background:

The case in question involved a directive from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the defendant to change its corporate name. In compliance with the court's direction, the defendant applied to the Registrar of Companies for a change of name. However, confusion arose regarding the applicability of Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013, which mandates the display of old company names for a period of two years in cases of voluntary name changes.

Interpretation of Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013:

Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013, stipulates that when a company voluntarily changes its name, it must continue to display its old name along with its new name for a period of two years from the date of change. The objective behind this provision is to ensure transparency and inform stakeholders about the transition to a new corporate identity.

Clarification by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:

In the case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the defendant argued that it was required to comply with the provisions of Section 12 despite the name change being mandated by the court. However, the court clarified that Section 12 applies specifically to cases of voluntary name changes initiated by the company itself. In instances where the court directs a company to change its name as part of a judicial order, the provisions of Section 12 do not apply.

Conclusion:

The interpretation of Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013, by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in mandatory name change cases underscores the nuanced approach required in legal proceedings involving corporate governance matters. By providing clarity on the applicability of statutory provisions, courts play a pivotal role in ensuring compliance with the law while balancing the practical realities faced by businesses.

Case Title: Sanofi and another Vs Zanofi Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.

Order Date: 23.02.2024

Case No. CS Comm 881 of 2023

Neutral Citation:N.A.

Name of Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal, H.J.

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney,

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Ph No: 9990389539

Maruti Ispat & Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chetna Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd.

Genericness of Trademark

Introduction:

Trademark protection is fundamental to safeguarding the distinctiveness and reputation of brands in commerce. However, disputes often arise when trademarks are allegedly diluted through widespread use or inaction by the trademark owner. This article analyzes a recent legal case where the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's trademark had become generic due to the plaintiff's failure to object to third-party usage.

Background of the Case:

The case at hand involves an appeal filed by the defendant against an order granting interim injunctions to the plaintiff in a trademark infringement dispute. The plaintiff, holding the trademark "SHAKTI," sought to restrain the defendant's use of a similar mark, "MS SHAKTI." The defendant argued that the plaintiff's inaction against other parties using similar marks implied that the mark had become generic and common to trade.

Legal Analysis:

The central legal issue in this case revolves around the concept of trademark dilution and the standard for proving genericness. Trademark dilution occurs when a mark loses its distinctiveness due to extensive use by third parties or failure to enforce trademark rights. However, establishing genericness requires more than mere inaction by the trademark owner.

The court's dismissal of the defendant's argument underscores the principle that non-action by the plaintiff against other parties does not automatically render the mark generic. Rather, the defendant must provide evidence to substantiate the claim of genericness. In this case, the court rightly held that the defendant failed to present prima facie material demonstrating that the mark "SHAKTI" had become generic in the trade.

Conclusion:

Trademark disputes involving allegations of dilution require careful consideration of legal principles and evidence. The recent case discussed highlights the significance of substantiating claims of genericness through proper evidence, rather than relying on the plaintiff's inaction alone.

Case Title: Maruti Ispat & Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chetna Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd.
Order Date: 23.02.2024
Case No. O.S.A (CAD).Nos.122 and 123 of 2023
Neutral Citation:2024:MHC:6521
Name of Court: Madras High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Sanjay Gangapurwala and Bharatha Chakravarthy, HJ

Disclaimer:

This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Ph No: 9990389539

Crocs INC Vs The Registrar of Trademarks and another

Relevance of Prior Trademark Registrations in a cancellation proceeding

Introduction:

In the intricate world of trademarks and intellectual property, clashes often arise when similar marks are used for related goods or services. One such dispute unfolded between "CROCKSCLUB" and "CROCS," involving trademarks in the realm of fashion.

Background:

Trademark protection serves to distinguish the goods or services of one entity from another in the marketplace. When trademarks bear resemblance and relate to similar products, conflicts may emerge. Such was the case with "CROCKSCLUB" and "CROCS."

The Dispute:

The dispute stemmed from the similarity between the trademarks "CROCKSCLUB" and "CROCS," despite their intended use for different product categories. While "CROCS" was registered for footwear, "CROCKSCLUB" aimed to establish its presence in the clothing sector. However, the proximity in sound and visual appearance between the two marks raised concerns.

Legal Proceedings:

In response to the trademark application for "CROCKSCLUB," "CROCS" initiated legal action, filing a rectification petition to challenge the registration. The basis of the petition rested on several factors:

1. Prior Registration: "CROCS" held prior registration for footwear, establishing its rights and precedence in the market.

2. Similarity of Trademarks: The phonetic and visual resemblance between "CROCKSCLUB" and "CROCS" raised the possibility of consumer confusion.

3. Similarity of Goods: Although "CROCKSCLUB" intended to operate in the clothing domain, the overlap with footwear – the core business of "CROCS" – contributed to the contention.

Outcome:

Following a thorough review of the case, including examination of the trademarks and their respective goods, the trademark authorities ruled in favor of "CROCS." The rectification petition filed by "CROCS" led to the cancellation or amendment of the "CROCKSCLUB" trademark.

Implications:

The resolution of the dispute carried significant implications for both parties involved. For "CROCS," it reinforced the protection of its established brand and prevented potential dilution or confusion in the footwear market. On the other hand, "CROCKSCLUB" faced setbacks in its efforts to establish a distinctive identity in the clothing sector, highlighting the challenges of navigating trademark conflicts in a competitive industry.

Conclusion:

The case of "CROCKSCLUB" versus "CROCS" exemplifies the complexities inherent in trademark disputes, particularly when trademarks share similarities and relate to overlapping product categories. Through legal proceedings, the resolution prioritized the protection of prior rights and the prevention of consumer confusion, underscoring the significance of thorough trademark analysis and strategic decision-making in intellectual property management.

The Case Discussed:

Case Title: Crocs INC Vs The Registrar of Trademarks and another
Judgment/Order Date: 08.04.2024
Case No: CO Comm IPD TM 779 of 2022
Neutral Citation: NA
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal, H.J.

Disclaimer:

This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Ph No: 9990389539

Mallcom India Limited Vs Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Private Limited and Ors

Passing Off and Deceptive Similarity

Introduction:

The case at hand involves a dispute between two parties, each utilizing similar trademarks in the safety shoe industry. The plaintiff asserts rights over the trademark "TIGER," while the defendant employs "CDTIGER." Despite the defendant's registration of the trademark, the plaintiff claims prior usage and alleges infringement and passing off. This analysis delves into the legal intricacies surrounding trademark infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act 1999, specifically focusing on Section 28(3) and the concept of deceptive similarity.

Trademark Infringement under Section 28(3) of the Trademarks Act 1999:

Section 28(3) of the Trademarks Act 1999 outlines the rights of a registered proprietor, affording protection against infringement. In the present case, the defendant holds registration for the trademark "CDTIGER," thereby invoking the provisions of Section 28(3) to assert their rights. The Court, guided by this provision, acknowledged the defendant's status as a registered proprietor, thereby limiting the plaintiff's ability to seek relief solely based on trademark infringement.

However, it is essential to note that the mere registration of a trademark does not preclude claims of passing off. Passing off elucidates the circumstances under which this Remedy can be granted , emphasizing factors such as similarity of marks, similarity of goods or services, likelihood of confusion, and the likelihood of detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark. Despite the defendant's registration, the court must assess whether the plaintiff's rights have been encroached upon by considering these factors.

Passing Off and Deceptive Similarity:

Passing off is a common law remedy designed to protect the goodwill associated with a trader's business or goods. Unlike trademark infringement, passing off does not require registration of the trademark but rather focuses on the misrepresentation leading to confusion or deception in the minds of the consumers.

In the case at hand, the plaintiff, as the prior user of the trademark "TIGER," successfully argued passing off due to the deceptive similarity between the competing trademarks. The court recognized that while "CDTIGER" differs from "TIGER" by the inclusion of additional characters, the overall impression created by both marks is substantially similar. This deceptive similarity is likely to confuse consumers regarding the origin of the goods.

Conclusion:

The case underscores the complexities inherent in trademark disputes, particularly in scenarios involving competing trademarks and issues of infringement and passing off. While the defendant's registration confers certain rights under Section 28(3) of the Trademarks Act 1999, it does not immunize against claims of passing off.

The Case Discussed:

Case Title: Mallcom India Limited Vs Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Private Limited and Ors

Judgment/Order Date: 10.04.2024

Case No: CS Comm 85 of 2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Narula, H.J.

Disclaimer:

This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Mohd. Shakir Vs Gopal Traders and another

Role of Trademark Registrations in Copyright Disputes

Introduction:

The subject matter of this legal analysis revolves around a petition seeking rectification of copyright MYA, with the petitioner contending that Respondent No. 1 is not the original creator of the copyright. The petitioner alleges that a third party located outside of India holds the true authorship of the artwork MYA. However, the court dismissed the petition, highlighting the petitioner's reliance on trademark registrations by the third party as unsustainable due to procedural and evidentiary inadequacies.

Rectification of Copyright and the Burden of Proof:

Rectification of copyright involves the correction of errors or inaccuracies in the copyright register, typically concerning ownership or authorship. In the present case, the petitioner seeks rectification based on the assertion that the copyright in MYA belongs to a third party outside of India, challenging the claim of Respondent No. 1 as the originator. However, the burden rests on the petitioner to substantiate their claim with compelling evidence demonstrating the inaccuracy of the existing copyright registration.

Importance of Originator Identity and Evidence:

Central to the dispute is the identity of the true originator of the copyrighted artwork MYA. The petitioner contends that the third party, situated outside of India, holds rightful ownership of the copyright. However, the court emphasizes the necessity of incontrovertible evidence to support such claims, particularly in the absence of the third party's participation in the proceedings. The petitioner's reliance solely on trademark registrations obtained by the third party in Australia and other countries is deemed insufficient to conclusively establish their ownership of the copyright.

Role of Trademark Registrations in Copyright Disputes:

Trademark registrations serve as valuable indicators of intellectual property rights but are not inherently determinative of copyright ownership. While trademark registrations by a third party may suggest a connection to the artwork MYA, they do not inherently prove authorship or legitimate ownership of the copyright. The court rightly cautions against basing copyright rectification solely on extraneous and unverified evidence, such as trademark registrations, without corroborating evidence directly addressing copyright ownership.

The Case Discussed:

Case Title: Mohd. Shakir Vs Gopal Traders and another
Judgment/Order Date: 08.04.2024
Case No: Co Comm IPD CR 699 OF 2022
Neutral Citation: NA
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge:Anish Dayal, H.J.

Disclaimer:

This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Ph No: 9990389539

PM Diesels P Ltd. Vs Thukral Mechanical Works

P.M. Diesels Private Limited vs. Thukral Mechanical Works:An interim injunction cannot be granted against a registered trade mark owner unless the registration is declared invalid

Case Title: P.M. Diesels Private Limited vs. Thukral Mechanical Works
Date of Order: 19 January 1988
Neutral Citation: AIR 1988 DELHI 282, 1988(1) ARBLR 150 (DELHI), 34 (1988) DLT 235, 1988 (15) DRJ 47
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'ble Justice Shri Justice B.N. Kirpal

Introduction:The case of P.M. Diesels Private Limited vs. Thukral Mechanical Works revolved around trademark infringement and the concept of passing off under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The dispute arose regarding the use of the trade mark "Field Marshal," which both parties claimed rights over in relation to diesel oil engines and centrifugal pumps. The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from using the trade mark, while the defendant argued that it was the registered proprietor of the mark for centrifugal pumps. This case is significant in defining the rights of registered trade mark owners and prior users.

Factual Background:P.M. Diesels Private Limited had been engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and exporting diesel oil engines, centrifugal pumps, and electric motors since 1963. It had obtained registration of the trade mark "Field Marshal" under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Thukral Mechanical Works was also manufacturing centrifugal pumps and had adopted the trade mark "Field Marshal" for its products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing its registered trade mark and engaging in passing off, which misled customers into believing that the defendant’s products were associated with the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained an ex parte injunction on 19 December 1985, restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling goods under the trade mark "Field Marshal." However, the defendant contested this order, arguing that it was the registered proprietor of the trade mark for centrifugal pumps, having acquired it through an assignment from Jain Industries, Agra, in 1986.

Procedural Background:The plaintiff initially filed a suit for a perpetual injunction, preventing the defendant from using the mark "Field Marshal" for diesel oil engines and related products. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction on 19 December 1985. The defendant challenged the injunction, asserting its trade mark registration for centrifugal pumps. The plaintiff subsequently filed C.O. 6/87 for rectification of the trade mark register, seeking removal of the defendant’s registration. The court considered whether the plaintiff, despite being a prior user, could restrain the defendant from using a trade mark registered in its favor.

Issues Involved:Whether the plaintiff could restrain the defendant from using the trade mark "Field Marshal" despite the defendant’s registration? Whether the defendant’s registration of the trade mark for centrifugal pumps was valid? Whether the plaintiff’s prior use of the trade mark gave it a superior right over the registered proprietor? Whether the defendant had engaged in fraudulent activities to secure the trade mark registration? Whether the principles of "passing off" were applicable in this case?

Submission of Parties:The plaintiff argued that it had been using the trade mark "Field Marshal" since 1963 and had goodwill and reputation in the market. The defendant’s use of the trade mark constituted infringement and passing off, causing confusion among consumers. The defendant had fraudulently acquired registration for centrifugal pumps and manipulated trade mark records. The plaintiff’s application for rectification should be given precedence, and an interim injunction should be maintained until a final decision on rectification.

The defendant countered that it was the registered proprietor of the trade mark for centrifugal pumps, which was assigned to it by Jain Industries, Agra. Under Section 28 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, a registered proprietor had an exclusive right to use the trade mark. The plaintiff never challenged the registration when it was first granted in 1965 to Jain Industries. The plaintiff could not seek an injunction because the registration of the trade mark was prima facie valid under Section 31 of the Act.

Discussion on Judgments Cited:The plaintiff relied on Narayanan’s Trade Marks and Passing Off, which states that prior user rights override registration rights, citing Section 33 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The defendant relied on M/s. Mayor Brothers v. M/s. Watkins Mayor & Co., IA 2061/78 in Suit No. 530/78, decided on 13 April 1983, where the Delhi High Court refused to grant an injunction against a registered proprietor of a trade mark. The defendant also cited Marfleet Refining Co. v. Warden Chemicals, IA 2969/82 in Suit No. 1024/82, where the court held that an injunction cannot be granted against a registered proprietor unless the trade mark is removed from the register. The plaintiff referred to Valentine Extract Co. Ltd., (1901) 18 RPC 175, arguing that an injunction can be granted if a trade mark was fraudulently obtained. However, the court found this case inapplicable as it did not involve Sections 28 and 31 of the Indian Act.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:Justice B.N. Kirpal analyzed the case based on the principles of trade mark registration, prior user rights, and passing off. Registration of the Trade Mark: Under Section 28, a registered proprietor has the exclusive right to use the trade mark. The defendant was the registered owner of the trade mark "Field Marshal" for centrifugal pumps. Prior User Rights: The plaintiff claimed prior user rights under Section 33, but this did not give the plaintiff the right to restrain a registered proprietor. Prima Facie Validity: Under Section 31, the defendant’s registration was prima facie valid, and the plaintiff had to prove fraud in rectification proceedings. Co-existence of Rights: Since both parties were registered proprietors for different goods, Section 28(3) applied, preventing one from restraining the other. Allegations of Fraud: The court held that allegations of fraudulent registration could only be decided in the rectification proceedings.

Final Decision:The court vacated the interim injunction and allowed the defendant to use the trade mark "Field Marshal" for centrifugal pumps. The defendant was required to not use the logo/style owned by the plaintiff, mention "Thukral Mechanical Works, Sirhind" on its products, and maintain accounts of sales under the trade mark.The plaintiff was allowed to pursue rectification proceedings, but until the trade mark was removed, the defendant retained its registered trade mark rights.

Law Settled in This Case:A registered proprietor has exclusive rights under Section 28 unless the trade mark is removed. Prior user rights do not automatically override trade mark registration. An interim injunction cannot be granted against a registered trade mark owner unless the registration is declared invalid. Allegations of fraud must be decided in rectification proceedings, not in an injunction application. Co-existence of trade mark rights under Section 28(3) applies if both parties have separate registrations.

Disclaimer:
This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney, Delhi High Court

Manisha Mahendra Gala and Ors Vs Shalini Bhagwan

Power of Attorney holder can depose regarding what he is having personal knowledge

Introduction:

The case at hand revolves around a property dispute wherein the plaintiffs/appellants assert their rights over a piece of land against the defendants/respondents, the Gala’s. Central to the dispute is the absence of substantial evidence to substantiate the plaintiffs' claims regarding easementary rights and the validity of the plaintiffs' legal representation. This article aims to analyze the legal intricacies surrounding the evidentiary requirements in property disputes, focusing on the principles of personal knowledge, admissibility of documents, and the burden of proof.

Evidentiary Requirements and Legal Representation:

The plaintiffs' case hinges on the deposition of Joki Woler Ruzer, their representative, who purportedly failed to provide first hand testimony to validate the claims made in the plaint. The legal framework dictates that a Power of Attorney holder can only depose on matters within their personal knowledge. They cannot attest to facts beyond their purview or predating their involvement in the legal proceedings. Therefore, the absence of Joki Woler Ruzer's testimony on pre-existing rights or easementary claims significantly weakens the plaintiffs' case.

Admissibility of Documents:

A critical aspect of the dispute is the admissibility of the Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994, which allegedly transferred rights over the disputed land to the Gala’s. The plaintiffs contend that the production of a photocopy of the Sale Deed renders it inadmissible as evidence. Legal precedents affirm that the original document holds paramount importance in establishing authenticity and admissibility. Thus, the reliance on a photocopy, without presenting the original Sale Deed, undermines the credibility of the document and, consequently, the plaintiffs' claims.

Burden of Proof and Acquisition of Easementary Rights:

Central to the dispute is the assertion of easementary rights by the Gala’s over the disputed land. However, the appellate courts and the High Court have ruled in favor of the defendants/respondents, emphasizing the lack of evidence to substantiate such claims. The burden of proof rests with the party asserting easementary rights, necessitating clear and convincing evidence of continuous and uninterrupted use of the land. In the absence of such evidence, the courts rightly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and decreed in favor of the defendants.

Conclusion:

The case highlights the critical importance of adhering to stringent evidentiary standards in property disputes. The failure to provide firsthand testimony, produce original documents, and meet the burden of proof can significantly weaken a party's legal position.

The Case Discussed:

Case Title: Manisha Mahendra Gala and Ors Vs Shalini Bhagwan

Judgment/Order Date: 10.04.2024

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9642 of 2010

Neutral Citation: 2024:INSC:293

Name of Court: Supreme Court of India

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra, H.J.

Disclaimer:

This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Daiwa Pharmaceuticals Co Ltd. Vs Daiwa Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Interstate Transfer of Suit in Patent Infringement dispute

Introduction:

The case at hand involves patent litigation between FMC and NATCO, encompassing multiple legal fora including the High Court of Delhi and the District Court in Chandigarh. Here I aim to provide a detailed analytical examination of the legal implications and rationale behind the transfer of suits from the District Court to the High Court of Delhi by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Background:

FMC initiated patent infringement suits against NATCO before the High Court of Delhi, with NATCO responding by filing counterclaims. Subsequently, FMC filed three additional suits against NATCO before the District Court in Chandigarh, leading to a fragmented legal landscape with parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions. Complicating matters further, the suits involved overlapping claims pertaining to the same patent, IN298645, with a concurrent revocation petition regarding claim No.12, which was also subject to the suits before the District Court.

Legal Analysis:

The central issue before the Supreme Court was the consolidation of litigation concerning the same patent and involving identical parties across multiple forums. The court recognized the potential for conflicting judgments, inefficient adjudication, and forum shopping inherent in such a scenario. Therefore, the court invoked its inherent jurisdiction to transfer the suits from the District Court in Chandigarh to the High Court of Delhi to ensure judicial efficiency, consistency, and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.

Implication:

The Supreme Court's decision to transfer the patent infringement suits from the District Court in Chandigarh to the High Court of Delhi exemplifies a judicious exercise of judicial authority to promote efficiency, consistency, and fairness in multi-forum litigation. By prioritizing the principles of jurisdictional unity, avoidance of forum shopping, patent law consistency, and judicial efficiency, the court advanced the interests of justice and upheld the integrity of the legal process.

The Case Discussed:

Case Title: Daiwa Pharmaceuticals Co Ltd. Vs Daiwa Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Judgment/Order Date: 16.04.2024
Case No: Comm IP Suit No. 82 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC:OS:6232
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: R.I.Chagla,H.J.

Disclaimer:

This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Ph No: 9990389539