Premier SPG and WVG Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Football Association Premier League Ltd.

"Anti-Dissection Rule" and "Dominant or Essential Feature" Principle in Trademark Disputes:

Abstract:

This article delves into a recent trademark dispute between the Appellant/Opponent, utilizing the marks PREMIER APPARELS, PREMIER CLUB, PREMIER GARMENTS, and the Respondent/Applicant, featuring a composite trademark incorporating word BARCLAYS PREMIER LEAGUE a lion device. The case raises questions surrounding the application of the "anti-dissection rule" and the "dominant or essential feature" principle in trademark law, with the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ultimately rejecting the appeal. This article provides a detailed analysis of the legal arguments, principles applied, and the court's rationale.

Introduction:

The legal landscape of trademark disputes often involves intricate considerations of similarity, deceptive resemblance, and the protection of distinctive elements. The case under discussion centers on the conflicting trademarks of the Appellant/Opponent PREMIER APPARELS, PREMIER CLUB, PREMIER GARMENTS, and Respondent's/Applicant's composite mark featuring word BARCLAYS PREMIER LEAGUE and a lion device.

Background and Claims:

The Appellant/Opponent asserted a history of using the house mark 'PREMIER' and related formative marks since 1991. On the other hand, the Respondent/Applicant claimed to be the organizing body of the 'Barclays Premier League,' with trademark rights dating back to 2006. The rejection of the notice of opposition prompted the Appellant/Opponent to file an appeal, arguing for the similarity of marks.

Legal Framework:

The Hon'ble Single Judge grappled with the application of the "anti-dissection rule" and the "dominant or essential feature" principle, referencing the precedent set by South India Beverages Vs General Mills Marketing (2014 SCC OnLine Del 1953). The court clarified that while South India Beverages does not impose an absolute prohibition on considering constituent elements, it mandates viewing them as a preliminary step towards resolving conflicting composites.

Application of the "Anti-Dissection Rule":

The anti-dissection rule prohibits the separation of individual elements within a composite mark for comparison. The court observed that the elements, such as the lion device and the word 'LEAGUE' in the Respondent's mark, collectively distinguish it from the Appellant's marks. The rule did not preclude consideration of elements but emphasized their combined impact.

"Dominant or Essential Feature" Principle:

The court applied the "dominant or essential feature" principle, focusing on the overall impression created by each mark. It found that the dominant feature in the Respondent's mark was the word 'PREMIER' suffixed by 'LEAGUE,' coupled with the lion device, emphasizing the distinctiveness of their services in football-related industries.

Court's Rationale for Rejection:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in dismissing the appeal, emphasized the absence of deceptive similarity between the marks. The court highlighted the dissimilarities in font, style, and additional elements like a small flower device in the Appellant's mark. Furthermore, the court interpreted the lion device in the Respondent's mark as indicative of their involvement in football-related services.

The Concluding Note:

This case underscores the importance of a holistic approach in trademark disputes, considering the collective impact of elements within composite marks. The rejection of the appeal rested on a nuanced application of the "anti-dissection rule" and the "dominant or essential feature" principle, emphasizing the distinctive nature of each mark in the context of the relevant industry.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Premier SPG and WVG Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Football Association Premier League Ltd.

Date of Judgement/Order:22.01.2024

Case No. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 15/2023

Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:427

Name of Hon'ble 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

Amir Biri Factory & Ors Vs Mohd. Aslam

Impact of Suppressing Disclaimer Conditions on Trademark Registration

Introduction:

The recent judgment by the Calcutta High Court in the MAZDOOR BIDI case sheds light on the consequences of suppressing a disclaimer condition on a registered trademark. In this case, the plaintiff, who initially secured an ex-parte injunction against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement, faced challenges as the defendant brought forth compelling arguments. This analysis delves into the legal implications and considerations made by the court in vacating the interim injunction.

Suppression of Disclaimer Condition:

The pivotal issue revolved around the plaintiff's alleged suppression of a disclaimer condition related to their registered trademark "MAZDOOR BIDI." The court noted that the plaintiff failed to disclose a crucial fact – the existence of a restriction on the exclusive rights over the descriptive matter appearing on the label. Specifically, the plaintiff was granted the right to sell its product exclusively within the State of West Bengal.

Court's Observations:

The Calcutta High Court, in its observations, highlighted that the plaintiff obtained the injunction order by suppressing material facts. The court emphasized that the disclaimer condition, which limited the plaintiff's exclusive rights, was vital information that should have been disclosed during the legal proceedings. This failure to provide complete and accurate information influenced the court's decision to vacate the interim injunction.

Defendant's Counter Arguments:

The defendant strategically presented three key arguments challenging the plaintiff's case. Firstly, they contended that the plaintiff's activity was limited to West Bengal, while the defendant operated in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Secondly, the defendant claimed to be the prior user of the trademark. Lastly, the defendant submitted an affidavit asserting that their products were not sold, directly or indirectly, in the State of West Bengal.

Court's Decision:

The court, after careful consideration of the defendant's arguments, sided with the defendant and vacated the interim injunction by observing that Plaintiff has obtained the ex parte Injunction after suppressing the disclaimer condition on its registered Trademark. The judgment further highlighted the defendant's establishment as the prior user and their documented evidence showing that their products were not being sold in West Bengal. The failure of the plaintiff to provide any evidence to the contrary further weakened their case.

The concluding Note:

This case underscores the importance of transparency in legal proceedings, particularly in matters related to trademark registrations. Suppressing essential information, such as disclaimer conditions, can have severe consequences for the party seeking legal remedies. The MAZDOOR BIDI case serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the need for full and accurate disclosure to ensure a fair and just legal process in trademark disputes.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Amir Biri Factory & Ors Vs Mohd. Aslam

Date of Judgement/Order:16.01.2024

Case No. CS No 211 of 2012

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: Calcutta High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Krishna Rao, 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

The Bombay Metal Works Vs R S Industries

Repeated violation of Intellectual Property Rights

Introduction:

The present legal discourse delves into a contentious lawsuit initiated by the plaintiff against the defendant, centered on allegations of persistent trade dress violation related to bicycle parts. The crux of the plaintiff's argument revolves around the purported replication of their trade dress by the defendant, backed by a history of litigation between the parties. This article seeks to analyze the legal nuances of the case, with a focus on the defendant's alleged persistent violations despite previous legal interventions.

Background:

The plaintiff contends that the defendant's actions amount to an violation of their trade dress, pointing to a protracted history of legal battles between the parties. A pivotal reference is made to CS No.127/2002, renumbered as CS(OS) 1256/2007, where the court issued a detailed order on 12th February, 2002, restraining the defendant from copying the plaintiff's trade dress for the same product.

The culmination of this suit resulted in a decree in favor of the plaintiff, including damages of Rs.3 lakhs, as ordered on 6th February, 2017. Despite this legal intervention and the subsequent payment of damages by the defendant, the plaintiff asserts that the violating activities persist and Defendant kept on adopting the similar violating Trade Dress. In such a situation, the Plaintiff was again required to file the subject matter Suit

Legal Precedents:

The historical context of CS No.127/2002 provides a legal backdrop, indicating the court's prior recognition of the defendant's actions as violation of Plaintiff's Trade Dress. The issuance of an injunction and subsequent decree suggest a precedent that underscores the importance of protecting the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. The court's past orders and the damages awarded demonstrate a judicial stance against the defendant's alleged trade dress infringement.

Current Proceedings:

The Hon'ble Court's decision to issue notice on the current suit signals the court's acknowledgment of the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant continues to engage in habitual trade dress violations. This raises questions about the efficacy of past legal remedies and the need for more robust measures to curb persistent infringement activities.

The concluding Note:

In conclusion, the ongoing legal saga between the plaintiff and defendant revolves around the repeated allegations of trade dress violation in the realm of bicycle parts. The historical context of prior litigation and court orders highlights the gravity of the plaintiff's claims. The issuance of notice by the court in the present suit indicates a recognition of the need to address the defendant's alleged habitual violations, raising important questions about the effectiveness of past legal remedies and the potential for heightened judicial intervention in protecting intellectual property rights.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: The Bombay Metal Works Vs R S Industries

Date of Judgement/Order:19.01.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 54/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Hon'ble 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

Bulgari SPA Vs Notandas Gems Pvt.Ltd.

Accepting Additional Documents which were left out due to inadvertent error

Introduction:

The legal scenario under consideration involves a significant procedural development in a civil case, where the defendant filed an application under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to introduce additional documents supporting the amended written statement. This article aims to scrutinize the circumstances surrounding the defendant's plea, the plaintiff's objections, and the subsequent decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

Background:

The defendant, in a proactive move, sought the court's permission to include additional documents that were intended to be filed along with the amended written statement. The defendant argued that an inadvertent error led to the omission of these documents during the filing process. To fortify this claim, the defendant invoked the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sugandhi Vs. P. Raj Kumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706, emphasizing the court's approach to similar situations.

Defendant's Justification:

The defendant's submission highlighted the unintentional nature of the error, clarifying that the additional documents were meant to accompany the amended written statement. Relying on the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the defendant contended that the oversight should not prejudice their case, especially when the documents were crucial for supporting their defense.

Plaintiff's Opposition:

In response, the plaintiff raised objections, asserting that the defendant failed to provide sufficient reasons for not including the documents with the amended written statement. The plaintiff contended that the defendant did not establish that the documents were not within their power and possession at the time of filing the amended written statement, thus questioning the timing of the request to introduce these documents.

Court's Rationale:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in a judicious analysis, decided in favor of admitting the additional documents overlooked by the defendant. The court justified its decision by pointing out the nature of the documents – articles from various jewelry/fashion magazines illustrating images of the defendant's jewelry designs. The court emphasized that these documents were integral to supporting the pleas already articulated in the written statement, thereby contributing substantively to the defendant's defense.

The concluding Note:

This case exemplifies the delicate balance courts strike between upholding procedural rigidity and ensuring substantive justice. The court's decision to allow the defendant's plea for introducing additional documents underscores a pragmatic approach, recognizing the inadvertent error and prioritizing the relevance of the documents to the case. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi v. P. Raj Kumar appear to have influenced the court's decision, emphasizing the need for a fair and just resolution in civil proceedings.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Bulgari SPA Vs Notandas Gems Pvt.Ltd.

Date of Judgement/Order:19.01.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 658/2021

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

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

The habitual Trade Dress violation by the Defendant

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

Sri Amaresh Banerjee vs The State Of West Bengal

Criminal Proceeding Dropped as Dispute Relating to Trademark is Civil Dispute

Introduction:

The present legal article delves into the intricacies of a Criminal Revision filed against an order dated 16.01.2019 in Shyampukur P.S. E.B. case No. 28 of 2009 by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The case involves allegations under Sections 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 103, 104 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999.

Factual Background:

The complainant, a manufacturer of coaltar using the trade name "Anchor" with specific color and artwork, conducts business in Kolkata. The trade mark was initially registered in the name of Aruna Banerjee, subsequently assigned to the complainant. On 3rd May 2008, the petitioner discovered that the opposite party began copying the identical trade mark with the intention of capturing the market.

Legal Proceedings:

The complainant initiated proceedings by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging inadequacies in the investigation. Subsequently, on 11th April 2016, a petition for reinvestigation was filed, leading to its rejection and the subsequent filing of the Criminal Revision.

High Court Decision:

The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta rejected the Criminal Revision, asserting that the dispute primarily relates to trademark/copyright and falls within the definition of a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court noted that a title suit had already been instituted by the petitioner against the opposite party, which is sub judice.

Legal Analysis:

The key legal question revolves around the characterization of the dispute. The High Court correctly identified it as a commercial dispute, emphasizing that it pertains to trademark and copyright issues. By invoking the Commercial Courts Act, the court clarified that such matters are inherently civil in nature.

Further, the court highlighted the existence of a pending title suit, indicating that the petitioner had sought legal recourse through the appropriate civil channels. The rejection of the Criminal Revision implies that the attempt to initiate criminal proceedings was viewed as an attempt to harass the opposite party, possibly for strategic reasons.

The Concluding Note:

The legal analysis underscores the importance of correctly categorizing disputes, particularly those involving intellectual property rights. In this case, the High Court's decision to classify the matter as a civil dispute aligns with the nature of the allegations. The rejection of the Criminal Revision reaffirms the significance of pursuing appropriate legal remedies and channels for dispute resolution in line with the nature of the dispute.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Sri Amaresh Banerjee vs The State Of West Bengal

Date of Judgement/Order:15.01.2024

Case No. CRR No.1005 of 2019

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: Calcutta  High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Shampa Dutt Paul, 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

Sai Chemicals Vs Jai Chemical Works

Part of registered Trademark, being common to trade

Introduction:

The recent legal dispute between the appellant and respondent delves into the complexities surrounding the use of common terms in trademarks and the consequent grant of exclusive rights. Central to the case is the appellant's argument that the term 'PATTA' is commonly used in trade, challenging the exclusive rights granted to the plaintiff's trademark 'HARA PATTA.' This article critically analyzes the court's rejection of this argument, highlighting the statutory considerations under Sections 9, 11, and 31(1) of the Trademarks Act 1999.

Background:

The subject matter at hand involves an appeal filed against the interim injunction granted to the plaintiff, who claims exclusive rights to the trademark 'HARA PATTA.' The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's use of the trademark 'TAZZA PATTA' infringes upon their registered trademark and raises issues related to common usage and the presumption of validity.

Trademark Background:

The plaintiff, engaged in the detergent powder business since 1996 under the 'HARA PATTA' trademark, holds registrations under the Trademarks Act 1999 since 2002 and the Copyright Act 1957. The defendant, involved in a similar business under the 'TAZZA PATTA' trademark registered since 2019, faces allegations of engaging in identical business activities.

Presumption of Validity:

The court acknowledges the statutory presumption of validity under Section 31(1) of the Act for registered marks. However, the court emphasizes that this presumption can be challenged if evidence suggests that the mark was not registrable ex-facie. The plaintiff's trademark, 'HARA PATTA,' was deemed valid under Section 31(1) despite the appellant's argument challenging the common usage of the term 'PATTA.'

Rejection of Common Usage Argument:

The appellant contends that the term 'PATTA' is commonly used in trade, and exclusive rights should not be granted. The court rejects this argument, emphasizing that the plaintiff's trademark, 'HARA PATTA,' does not suffer from any statutory handicaps outlined in Section 9 or Section 11. Consequently, the court rejects the characterization of 'HARA PATTA' as 'publici juris,' asserting that its validity is presumed at the prima facie stage under Section 31(1).

Deceptive Similarity:

The court further dismisses the appellant's claim that the entire 'HARA PATTA' mark is 'publici juris,' limiting this characterization to the term 'PATTA' alone. Consequently, the court finds the defendant's 'TAZZA PATTA' mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'HARA PATTA' mark, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Concluding Note:

This case underscores the futility of argument that only part of registered Trademark being common to Trade. The appellant's contention rests on the assertion that the term 'PATTA' is a common element in trade and, therefore, exclusive rights should not be conferred. The court finds that the plaintiff's mark 'HARA PATTA' does not suffer from any statutory handicaps mentioned in these sections.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Sai Chemicals Vs Jai Chemical Works

Date of Judgement/Order:17.01.2024

Case No. First Appeal from Order No.1623 of 2023

Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:7630

Name of Hon'ble Court: Allahabad  High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, 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

Allied Blenders Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hermes Distillery Private Limited

Trademark Infringement and the Perils of "Smart Copying"

Introduction:

The recent case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi sheds light on the nuances of trademark infringement and the concept of "smart copying." In this matter, the court restrained the defendants, emphasizing that even when adopting a strategy of intelligent imitation, it does not serve as a defense in cases of trademark infringement. This article delves into the legal intricacies of the case, drawing parallels with earlier judicial observations and analyzing the implications of "smart copying."

Judicial Precedent: The Balancing Act:

The judgment at hand resonates with the wisdom shared by Hon'ble Justice Shri Manmohan in the case of Marico Limited Vs. Mr. Mukesh Kumar (Judgement dated 27.08.2018 passed in CS(COMM) 1569/2016, reported as AIR Online 2018 Del 1322). Justice Shri Manmohan, in his 2018 judgment, aptly noted, "The most successful form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the public with enough points of difference to confuse the courts." This observation, borrowed from Baker v. Master Printers Union of New Jersey,[47 USPQ 69 (D.N.J.1940)] sets the tone for understanding the delicate balance between imitation and differentiation.

Factual Matrix: OFFICER'S CHOICE vs. PEACE MAKER

In the recent case, the plaintiff's trademark was OFFICER'S CHOICE, characterized by a red and white color trade dress. On the other hand, the defendant's trademark was PEACE MAKER, also featuring a red and white color trade dress. The defendant argued that red and white color trade dress was commonly used by various parties and contended that the competing trademarks, OFFICER'S CHOICE and PEACE MAKER, were distinct.

Court's Analysis: Unraveling the Threads of "Smart Copying"

Despite the defendant's assertions, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi exercised restraint, discerning a clear attempt at "smart copying." The court acknowledged that while the defendant highlighted the use of red and white color trade dress by various parties, the prima facie analysis revealed a conspicuous effort to engage in intelligent imitation. The court observed that the differences, as illustrated in the chart, were overshadowed by the broad similarities at first glance, pushing the distinctions into obscurity.

Conclusion: The Limits of Intelligent Imitation:

In trademark infringement cases, the judgment highlights the court's skepticism towards strategies of "smart copying." The decision underscores that merely pointing out differences in a meticulous chart may not absolve a defendant if the overarching similarities are glaring. This raises important questions about the boundaries of intelligent imitation and the extent to which courts will scrutinize attempts to confuse the public while simultaneously attempting to navigate legal defenses.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Allied Blenders Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hermes Distillery Private Limited

Date of Judgement/Order:15.01.2024

Case No. CS Comm 274 of 2021

Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:288

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, 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

Rong Thai International Group Company Limited Vs Ena Footwear Private Limited

Rectification of a Registered Trademark Based on Non-Use

Introduction:

The cancellation of a registered trademark on the grounds of non-use is a significant aspect of trademark law, as outlined in Section 47 of the Trademarks Act 1999. This article delves into a specific case heard by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, involving the registered trademark 'BAOJI,' registered under No. 1530274 in Class 25.

Scope of Section 47 and Necessary Conditions:

Section 47 of the Trademarks Act 1999 allows for the cancellation of a registered trademark based on non-use. However, the Hon'ble High Court emphasized that a successful challenge under this section necessitates demonstrating a continuous non-use for a minimum of five years from the date of entry into the register up to three months before the application for removal.

Case Analysis:

In the case under consideration, the registration certificate for the 'BAOJI' mark was issued on December 26, 2013, officially entering the register. The rectification application was filed on August 10, 2020. Accordingly, the critical date for assessing the use of the mark was set as May 10, 2020, three months before the rectification application.

The Court's Observations:

The Hon'ble High Court scrutinized the evidence and observed that sale invoices submitted into the record indicated consistent transactions by Respondent No. 1 using the 'BAOJI' mark from 2012 through 2022. This unbroken chain of evidence unequivocally established a continuous and uninterrupted use of the trademark over a significant period.

The concluding Note:

In light of the court's analysis and interpretation of Section 47, the cancellation petition was dismissed. This case underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence of continuous non-use within the specified timeframe to succeed in challenging a registered trademark on grounds of non-use.

The Case Law Discussed:

Case Title: Rong Thai International Group Company Limited Vs Ena Footwear Private Limited

Date of Judgement/Order:05.01.2024

Case No. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 100/2021  

Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:112

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi  High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Narula, 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