Sun Pharmaceutical Industries .Vs Protrition Products

Analysis of Section 30(2)(e) Defense in Trademark Dispute

Introduction:

This case study delves into a recent case where the defense under Section 30(2)(e) was invoked based on trademark registrations in different classes, presenting an analysis of the court's observations and the implications for trademark adjudication.

Background:

The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit relying on their trademark registration in Class 05, while the defendant held registrations in Class 29, 30, and 32. Notably, the defendant lacked registration in Class 5, prompting scrutiny of the applicability of the defense under Section 30(2)(e).

Section 30(2)(e) Overview:

Section 30(2)(e) of the Trademarks Act 1999 stipulates that the use of a registered mark, in accordance with the right derived from its registration, does not constitute infringement. However, the crucial element lies in the alignment of this use with the registered goods and class.

Court's Analysis:

The Hon'ble Court discerned that the defense under Section 30(2)(e) is contingent upon the mark being registered in the specific class relevant to the dispute. In this case, since the defendant's marks lacked registration in Class 5, the protection afforded by Section 30(2)(e) was deemed unavailable.

Interpretation of Right to Use:

The court emphasized that the right to use, as envisaged by Section 30(2)(e), is intrinsically tied to the goods and class specified in the registration. The defendant's registrations in different classes (29, 30, and 32) could not extend the defense to Class 5, as it would contravene the statutory framework.

Limitations of Section 30(2)(e):

The article elucidates that the defense under Section 30(2)(e) cannot be invoked based on the use of a registered mark for goods outside the scope of the granted registration. The defendant's registrations for "ABBZORB" in different classes did not mitigate the infringement allegation related to goods in Class 5.

This Concluding Note:

This he legal analysis underscores the specificity required in relying on Section 30(2)(e) as a defense in trademark disputes. The court's strict adherence to the class and goods specified in the registration reaffirms the importance of precision in trademark protection. 

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:24.11.2023

Case No. W.P.(C)-IPD 18/2022

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8420

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Harishankar, HJ

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd..Vs Protrition Products LLP

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

Piruz Khambatta Vs Deputy Registrar of Trademarks

The Significance of Proving Actual Trademark Confusion in Assessing Similarity

Abstract:

This legal article delves into the pivotal aspect of establishing actual trademark confusion when comparing trademarks, as demonstrated by a recent case under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 

Background:

The appellant contested the dismissal of their opposition against the trademark 'RASANAND,' asserting similarity with their registered mark 'RASNA.' The Hon'ble High Court, in its verdict, emphasized the necessity of proving actual confusion and scrutinized the distinctiveness of the marks in various aspects—phonetically, graphically, visually, and structurally.

Introduction:

The case under consideration involves a Trade Marks Act, 1999 appeal against the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 12.7.2023. 

The appellant argued against the dismissal of their opposition, asserting that 'RASANAND' and 'RASNA' were deceptively similar. The Hon'ble High Court's analysis focused on the perceptible differences between the two marks and the absence of demonstrated confusion in the market.

Distinctiveness of Marks:

The court examined the phonetic, graphic, visual, and structural elements of 'RASNA' and 'RASANAND.' It concluded that, ex-facie, the marks exhibited distinctiveness. This thorough assessment highlights the court's commitment to scrutinizing trademarks comprehensively, emphasizing the need for clarity in differentiating between marks to prevent consumer confusion.

Absence of Deceptive Similarity:

The Hon'ble High Court's dismissal of the appeal rested on the determination that 'RASANAND' was not deceptively similar to the registered mark 'RASNA.' The court underscored the lack of confusion among consumers actively seeking the product 'RASNA.' This underscores the court's commitment to protecting consumers from potential confusion in the marketplace.

Role of Actual Confusion in Trademark Disputes:

A crucial aspect leading to the dismissal of the appeal was the appellant's failure to present evidence demonstrating actual confusion between 'RASNA' and 'RASANAND.' Despite 'RASANAND' co-existing in the market for over 19 years, the absence of documented cases of confusion played a pivotal role in the court's decision. This reiterates the significance of tangible proof of confusion in trademark disputes.

The Concluding Note:

This case underscores the importance of proving actual confusion in trademark disputes. The Hon'ble High Court's emphasis on distinctiveness and the absence of demonstrated confusion reinforces the principle that legal determinations in trademark matters must be grounded in tangible evidence. 

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:04.12.2023

Case No. CIVIL APPEAL NO.  18 of 202

Neutral Citation No:NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: Gujarat High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Niral R Mehta, HJ

Case Title: Piruz Khambatta Vs Deputy Registrar of Trademarks

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

Anurag Saxena Trading as unique International Vs Ravi Saini

Triple Identity Test and Grant of Interim Injunction in the "Hammer of Thor" Trademark Infringement Case

Introduction:

The recent legal proceedings in the matter of the "Hammer of Thor" trademark infringement case highlight the significance of the Triple Identity Test in granting interim injunctions. The Plaintiff, claiming prior adoption and trademark registration since 2013, filed a suit against the Defendants who used an identical trademark for food supplement capsules. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, drawing upon the precedent set in Ahmed Oomerbhoy v. Gautam Tank (2007 SCC OnLine Del 1685), employed the Triple Identity Test to establish the infringement and subsequently granted an interim injunction.

Background and Legal Basis:

The Plaintiff's case rested on the prior adoption and usage of the trademark "HAMMER OF THOR" in the context of ayurvedic capsules and gels. The Plaintiff asserted trademark registrations in class 03, 05, and 35 since 2013, and a copyright registration since 2019. The Defendants were accused of using an identical mark for food supplement capsules, leading the Plaintiff to seek legal recourse.

The Triple Identity Test:

As established in the Ahmed Oomerbhoy case, involves examining the similarity of the marks, the identity of the goods or services, and the likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers. In the present case, the court applied this test to determine whether the Defendants' use of the identical mark would lead to confusion among customers.

Application of the Triple Identity Test:

The court observed that the Defendants had adopted an identical mark to that of the Plaintiff's "HAMMER OF THOR" in the same field of business. The court emphasized that this action was an attempt by the Defendants to benefit from the Plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. Drawing parallels with the Ahmed Oomerbhoy case, where a similar mark ("Super Postman") was considered infringing due to its similarity, common goods, and shared trade area, the court found that the Triple Identity Test was satisfied in the current scenario.

Grant of Interim Injunction:

Upon establishing the Triple Identity, the court concluded that the Defendants' adoption of an identical mark would likely cause confusion among consumers. Recognizing the potential harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi exercised its discretionary power and granted an interim injunction against the Defendants. This injunction serves as a provisional measure to prevent further harm to the Plaintiff's interests until a final decision is reached in the lawsuit.

The concluding Note:

The "Hammer of Thor" trademark infringement case exemplifies the courts' reliance on the Triple Identity Test in cases of alleged trademark infringement. The decision to grant an interim injunction underscores the importance of protecting established goodwill and reputation in the marketplace.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:04.12.2023

Case No. CS Comm 866 of 2023

Neutral Citation No:NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh HJ

Case Title: Anurag Saxena Trading as unique International Vs Ravi Saini

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

Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Authority

The Significance of DUS (Distinctiveness, Uniformity, and Stability) Test in the Protection of Plant Variety Act

Abstract:

The Judgement discussed herein delves into the pivotal role played by the "DUS (Distinctiveness, Uniformity, and Stability) Test" in the registration process of plant varieties under the Protection of Plant Variety Act. Through the lens of five writ petitions brought before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the article scrutinizes the question of whether the DUS Test is a prerequisite before the publication of a Plant Variety application.

Introduction:

The Protection of Plant Variety Act aims to safeguard the rights of plant breeders and promote the development of new plant varieties. Central to this regulatory framework is the DUS Test, a comprehensive examination that assesses the distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability of a plant variety. This article explores the legal significance of the DUS Test, focusing on its role in the pre-publication stage of a Plant Variety application.

The Writ Petitions:

Five writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi raised a fundamental query: Does the DUS Test need to be conducted before the publication of a Plant Variety application? The controversy revolved around the advertisement of five plant varieties, namely MRC 7351 BGII, MRC 6322 Bt, MRC 7383 BG II, MRC 6918 Bt, and MRC 7301 BG II. The petitioners argued that these applications were erroneously advertised without undergoing the essential DUS Test.

Legal Precedent:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, referring to a prior judgment reported as "262 (2019) DLT 411 in the case of Pioneer Overseas Corporation Vs. Chairperson Protection of Plant Varieties Rights", upheld the significance of the DUS Test. The court, in the earlier case, had established that Section 19 of the Protection of Plant Variety Act mandates the completion of the DUS Test before the advertisement of a plant variety application.

Judicial Analysis:

The Hon'ble Single Judge, presiding over the five writ petitions, concurred with the precedent and emphasized the mandatory nature of the DUS Test before the advertisement stage. In a reasoned judgment, the court highlighted the statutory framework of the Protection of Plant Variety Act, underscoring the need for a thorough examination of distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability. The court held that as the subject matter applications were advertised without undergoing the DUS Test, such advertisements were irregular and set aside.

Remand and Implications:

The court, after setting aside the advertisements, remanded the applications back to the Registrar for compliance with the statutory requirement of the DUS Test. This decision underscores the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of the registration process, ensuring that plant varieties are scrutinized for their distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability before they are made available to the public.

The Concluding Note:

The DUS Test emerges as a linchpin in the Protection of Plant Variety Act, serving as a robust mechanism for evaluating the essential characteristics of plant varieties. The Delhi High Court's reaffirmation of the mandatory nature of the DUS Test prior to advertisement reinforces the commitment to maintaining the integrity of plant variety registrations, thus striking a balance between the interests of plant breeders and the public.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:04.12.2023

Case No. W.P.(C) 4312/2014

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8595

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Authority

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,

Mob No: 9990389539

Burger King Vs Swapnil Patil and Ors

The Evolution of Dynamic Injunctions in Safeguarding Intellectual Property Rights

Introduction:

In the realm of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the emergence of dynamic injunctions has proven to be a strategic legal tool in addressing the persistent challenges posed by infringing activities. This article examines the utilization of dynamic injunctions in a recent case involving the renowned trademark 'BURGER KING' in India, shedding light on the evolving legal landscape for protecting intellectual property.

Background:

The case at hand revolves around the proactive measures taken by the plaintiff to combat infringement activities related to the trademark 'BURGER KING.' Despite obtaining an initial injunction against the defendants, who engaged in unauthorized use of the trademark, the plaintiff encountered new challenges as two additional websites, www.burgerkingfoodindia.com and www.burgerkingfranchisesindia.co.in, surfaced. These websites allegedly continued the illicit offering of fake franchises and monetary collections similar to the earlier restrained defendants.

Dynamic Injunction: An Innovative Legal Mechanism:

To counter the recurring nature of infringement, Indian Courts introduced the concept of dynamic injunctions, a mechanism that adapts to emerging infringing activities. In the BURGER KING case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reaffirmed the efficacy of dynamic injunctions by extending their application to the newly identified websites.

Court Decision and Key Principles:

The court, having already issued an injunction against the initial defendants, expanded its protective umbrella to cover the additional websites. The ruling barred the operators of www.burgerkingfoodindia.com and www.burgerkingfranchisesindia.co.in from using not only the specific domain names mentioned but also any other names incorporating the trademark 'BURGER KING' and its constituent parts 'BURGER' and 'KING.'

Dynamic Injunction in Action:

The court's pivotal directive in the BURGER KING case underscores the dynamic nature of injunctions. It granted the plaintiff the freedom to file an affidavit and an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. This empowerment enables the plaintiff to identify and bring into the legal purview any mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variations associated with the defendants, aligning with the original infringing activities.

The Concluding Note:

The BURGER KING case serves as a noteworthy example of the adaptability of legal remedies in the face of evolving challenges posed by intellectual property infringement. The court's endorsement of dynamic injunctions reinforces their role as a crucial tool for safeguarding intellectual property rights in the ever-changing landscape of the digital domain. As technology continues to advance, the legal system must remain agile in its approach to provide effective remedies against infringing activities.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:04.12.2023

Case No. CS(COMM)303/2022

Neutral Citation No:NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, HJ

Case Title: Burger King Vs Swapnil Patil and Ors

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,

Mob No: 9990389539

Ischemix LLC Vs The Controller of Patent

Criterion for Medicinal Preparation and Enhanced Therapeutic Efficacy under Section 3(d) of the Patent Act 1970

Introduction:

This discussion delves into the criteria for medicinal preparations to meet objections under Section 3(d) of the Patent Act 1970, drawing insights from a recent case involving the rejection of a patent application titled "Compositions and Methods for Treating Ischemia and Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury."

Background of the Case:

The patent application in question, filed under No. ‘9739/DELNP/2011’ on 12.11.2011, faced rejection by the Controller of Patent on 13.05.2010. The primary ground for rejection was the purported lack of data demonstrating therapeutic efficacy. The central issue before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) of the Patent Act 1970.

Section 3(d) and the Criterion for Medicinal Preparation:

Section 3(d) of the Patent Act 1970 acts as a safeguard against the unwarranted extension of patent monopolies, particularly in the pharmaceutical domain.

It stipulates that mere discovery of a new form of a known substance, which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance, shall not be considered patentable. The case in question revolves around whether the medicinal preparation met the criterion of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.

Controller's Allegation and High Court's Response:

The Controller of Patent asserted that while the appellant may have provided some data, it failed to establish how the data constituted therapeutic efficacy. According to the Controller, enhanced therapeutic efficacy is demonstrated when a substance exhibits superior curative effects compared to existing substances.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in remitting the case back to the Controller, granted the appellant the liberty to submit trial data supporting the claim. The Court emphasized that the patent specification itself should contain data and results of lab experiments illustrating the enhancement of efficacy. Additionally, any additional data should be submitted prior to the final oral hearing.

Importance of Data Submission and Oral Explanation:

The Court's observations highlight the crucial role of data presentation during the patent application process. It underscores the importance of including comprehensive experimental results in the patent specification to substantiate claims of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.

Furthermore, the Court expressed concern over the practice of submitting additional data in written submissions post-oral hearings, as it may lead to oversight by the Patent Office and hinder a complete understanding of the presented data.

The Concluding Note:

The case discussed sheds light on the nuanced considerations involved in evaluating the enhanced therapeutic efficacy of medicinal preparations under Section 3(d) of the Patent Act 1970. It underscores the need for patent applicants to present robust data in the patent specification itself, ensuring clarity and comprehension during the examination process.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:22.11.2023

Case No. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 33/2022

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8496

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, HJ

Case Title: Ischemix LLC Vs The Controller of Patent

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,

Mob No: 9990389539

NIF Private Limited Vs Registrar of Trademarks

Procedural Fairness in Trademark Refusal Appeals: A Critical Analysis of Unreasoned Orders

Introduction:

A recent legal dispute has brought to light the importance of procedural fairness in trademark matters, specifically in the context of appeals against the refusal of trademark applications. The appellant challenged the order of the Registrar of Trademarks, contending that the refusal of Trademark Application No. 2665269 lacked justification as no reasons were provided. The ensuing analysis by the Hon'ble Court emphasizes the imperative of reasoned orders and fair procedural practices in trademark proceedings.

Unreasoned Orders and Due Procedure:

The Hon'ble Court's observation that an unreasoned order constitutes an affront to due and fair procedure underscores a fundamental tenet of administrative justice. The lack of reasons not only hampers aggrieved party's understanding of the basis for refusal but also raises concerns about the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process.

Critique of Post-Refusal Reasoning Scheme:

The court critically evaluated post-refusal reasoning scheme, expressing dissatisfaction with the practice of initially issuing unreasoned orders. The court contended that requiring an applicant to subsequently request and pay for the reasons, at their own expense, creates an unjust burden on the party seeking redress.

Insufficient Grounds in the Impugned Order:

The court's scrutiny of the impugned order revealed a deficiency in its substantive content. Apart from merely reproducing relevant legal provisions, the order failed to elucidate how these provisions were applicable to the appellant's case or why the application was rejected based on them. This lack of clarity undermines the essential requirement for a reasoned decision in administrative actions.

Remand for De Novo Consideration:

In light of the inadequacies identified in the refusal order, the court ordered the remand of Trademark Application No. 2665269 for de novo consideration by the office of the Trade Marks Registry. This directive reflects the court's commitment to upholding fair procedures and ensuring that decisions affecting trademark rights are founded on sound reasoning and proper application of the law.

Implications for Trademark Applicants:

The court's ruling carries broader implications for trademark applicants navigating the registration process. It reinforces the principle that applicants are entitled to transparent, reasoned decisions from administrative authorities, and the absence of such reasons can be a ground for challenge.

The Concluding Note:

This case highlights the imperative of reasoned decision-making in the context of trademark application refusals. The court's rebuke of unreasoned orders and its insistence on fair procedures contribute to the evolving landscape of trademark law, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness in administrative actions related to intellectual property.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:05.12.2023

Case No. C.A.(Comm-IPD-TM) 29 of 2021

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8716

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: NIF Private Limited Vs Registrar of Trademarks

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,

Mob No: 9990389539

House Of Diagnostics LLP & Ors Vs House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited

Importance of Advance Service in Trademark Infringement Cases

Introduction:

The recent pronouncement by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi underlines the crucial role of advance service in trademark infringement suits, emphasizing the significance of complying with Rule 22 of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules. The court's observation sheds light on the public interest inherent in this procedural requirement and underscores the principle that contested orders are integral to a fair legal process.

Public Interest in Rule 22 of IPD Rules:

The court, in its wisdom, acknowledged the public interest embedded in Rule 22 of the IPD Rules. It emphasized the fundamental premise that a contested legal proceeding is inherently healthy, as it ensures a comprehensive consideration of arguments from both sides. This stance resonates with the idea that an uncontested order may be susceptible to errors, given that it arises from a hearing involving only one party.

Contested Orders and Protection against Errors:

The court's observation underscores the safeguarding effect of contested orders. By their very nature, contested proceedings mitigate the risk of unilateral errors, whether factual or legal. The participation of both parties provides a more robust examination of the issues at hand, thereby reducing the likelihood of an erroneous judgment. This aligns with the core tenets of justice, ensuring a fair and balanced adjudication process.

No Right to Uncontested Orders:

The court's assertion that no party can claim an uncontested order as a matter of right reinforces the principle of fairness in legal proceedings. It establishes that the process of adjudication demands active engagement from all parties involved, and a party cannot expect a one-sided order without due contestation.

Strict Interpretation of Rule 22 of IPD Rules:

In the specific case at hand, the court directed the plaintiff to serve the defendant, underscoring a strict interpretation of Rule 22 of the IPD Rules. This indicates the court's commitment to upholding procedural requirements that contribute to the adversarial nature of legal proceedings.

Exemptions to Advance Service:

While emphasizing the importance of advance service, the court recognized that exceptions could be warranted in certain circumstances. The mention of situations involving substantial stocks of spurious products or a prior association between the parties suggests a pragmatic approach where the strict application of Rule 22 may not be necessary.

The Concluding Note:

The court's elucidation on the significance of advance service in trademark infringement cases, as governed by Rule 22 of the IPD Rules, reaffirms the commitment to a fair and contested legal process. The delicate balance between adherence to procedural requirements and recognition of exceptional circumstances underscores the nuanced nature of trademark litigation.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:05.12.2023

Case No. CS(COMM)869/2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8767

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: House Of Diagnostics LLP & Ors Vs House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited

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,

Mob No: 9990389539