Dominos IP Holder Vs MG Foods

Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction Granted in Favor of Domino's in Trademark Infringement Case Against MG Foods

The plaintiffs, Domino’s IP Holder, have successfully secured an ex-parte ad interim injunction against MG Foods for trademark infringement. The plaintiffs, renowned for their “DOMINO’S” mark since 1965, have established an extensive global presence with over 20,500 stores in more than 90 countries. In India, Domino's maintains a robust online ordering platform through their domain www.dominos.co.in, operational since 2007.

The plaintiffs raised concerns regarding the activities of defendant No.1, MG Foods, which has been operating in various regions of Punjab, specifically Jalandhar, Nakodar, Goraya, and Mehatpur. The defendant was found to be using a phonetically and visually similar mark, ‘DONITO’S,’ to sell identical products such as pizzas and burgers. This similarity has led to allegations of trademark infringement.

Hon'ble Judge Anish Dayal, presiding over the case, found sufficient grounds to grant the plaintiffs’ request for an ex-parte ad interim injunction. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favored them. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.

As a result, the court issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, prohibiting the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark ‘DONITO’S’ until the next hearing. This order aims to prevent any further potential harm to the plaintiffs' brand and business operations.

Case Title: Dominos IP Holder Vs MG Foods

Judgment/Order Date: 31.05.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 517/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

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]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Akzo Nobel Coating International BV Vs JK Cement

Role of Imagination Test and Competitors' Need Test in Trademark Disputes

Introduction:

In this case of ‘WEATHERSHIELD,’ used by the plaintiff for paints and coatings, versus ‘JK SUPER STRONG BUILD SAFE WEATHER SHIELD,’ used by the defendant for cement and building and construction materials, the court’s reliance on the “degree of imagination test” and “competitors’ need test” provides a detailed illustration of these concepts in action. This article examines the application of these tests and the court’s rationale in determining trademark infringement, leading to the interim relief granted to the plaintiff.

Background:

The plaintiff’s mark ‘WEATHERSHIELD’ has been in use since the 1970s and is registered in over 91 countries. In India, it holds registrations dating back to 1995. In contrast, the defendant applied for registration of ‘JK SUPER STRONG BUILD SAFE WEATHER SHIELD’ in September 2019 for building and construction materials, including cement. Upon discovering the defendant’s applications, the plaintiff initiated a legal dispute, arguing potential infringement and confusion due to the similarity of the marks.

Imagination Test and Competitors’ Need Test:

The court utilized two key tests to assess the distinctiveness and protectability of the plaintiff’s mark: the degree of imagination test and the competitors’ need test. These tests are interrelated and help determine whether a mark is descriptive or suggestive, and thus, the extent of protection it deserves.

Degree of Imagination Test:

This test evaluates how much imagination is required for consumers to associate the mark with the product. A mark requiring a high degree of imagination is less likely to be considered descriptive and more likely to be protected. In this case, the court noted that ‘WEATHERSHIELD’ is a unique and distinctive combination of common words ‘weather’ and ‘shield’. The term does not appear in dictionaries, underscoring its distinctiveness. The combination suggests a product that protects against weather, but this association is not immediately obvious, necessitating a higher degree of imagination.

Competitors’ Need Test:

This test assesses whether competitors need to use the term to describe their goods. If a term is essential for competitors to describe their products, it is likely to be considered descriptive and less protectable. The court found that the defendant had numerous alternative ways to convey the idea of weather protection without using the exact term ‘WEATHERSHIELD’. Alternatives such as ‘all weather protection’, ‘weather protector’, or ‘weather guard’ could effectively communicate the same message without infringing on the plaintiff’s mark.

Application to the Case:

The court observed that the defendant’s use of ‘WEATHER SHIELD’, with or without a space, and its placement on packaging indicated an intent to use it as a distinctive trademark rather than merely a descriptive term. This was evident from the manner of its presentation on packaging and in advertisements. Additionally, both products—cement and paints—are complementary in the construction industry and often purchased by the same group of consumers, including home builders, contractors, and masons.

Complementary Goods and Trade Channels:

The court highlighted that both cement and paints are used in construction and are often sold through the same trade channels, such as hardware and paint shops. This complementary relationship and common market channels increase the likelihood of confusion among consumers if identical or similar marks are used for both products. Thus, the court found that the concurrent use of ‘WEATHERSHIELD’ and ‘WEATHER SHIELD’ would likely lead to confusion, warranting interim relief in favor of the plaintiff.

Conclusion:

The application of the imagination test and competitors’ need test in this trademark dispute underscores the importance of evaluating the distinctiveness of a mark and the necessity for competitors to use similar terminology. The court’s detailed analysis in favor of the plaintiff highlights how these tests are used to protect trademarks that are unique and do not impose undue restrictions on competitors. This case reaffirms that trademarks requiring a higher degree of imagination and not essential for describing competitors’ products are afforded greater protection, ensuring fair competition and consumer clarity in the marketplace.

Case Title: Akzo Nobel Coating International BV Vs JK Cement
Judgment/Order Date: 28.05.2024
Case No. CS(COMM) 212/2023
Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4694
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
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]
United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com
Ph No: 9990389539

Chryscapital Advisers Vs Raj Lal Kumari

Delhi High Grants Ex-Parte Interim Injunction in Favor of Chryscapital Advisers Against Fraudulent Use of Trademark

Introduction On May 29, 2024, the High Court of Delhi granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Chryscapital Advisers in the case titled *Chryscapital Advisers Vs Raj Lal Kumari* (Case No. CS(COMM) 475/2024). The Hon'ble Judge Sanjeev Narula presided over the matter, which addressed the unauthorized and fraudulent use of the trademark "CHRYSCAPITAL" by the Defendants. This decision underscores the importance of trademark protection and the judiciary's role in upholding intellectual property rights against deceptive practices. Background of the Case Chryscapital Advisers, the Plaintiff, has been using the trademark "CHRYSCAPITAL" since 1999. This mark, along with "CHRYS," has been registered and integrated into the company’s identity, including domain names, establishing a solid foothold in the investment and advisory industry. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were fraudulently claiming an affiliation with Chryscapital Advisers, operating a deceptive trading investment business, and promising unrealistic returns to the public. This misuse aimed to capitalize on Chryscapital’s well-established reputation and goodwill. Legal Framework and Issues The primary legal issues revolved around trademark infringement and passing off. Trademark infringement involves the unauthorized use of a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, causing likely confusion about the origin of goods or services. Passing off is a common law tort used to enforce unregistered trademark rights, where a defendant’s misrepresentation leads the public to believe that their goods or services are those of the plaintiff. Court's Analysis and Findings The Court, upon examining the facts, concluded that: 1.Trademark Validity and Use: Chryscapital Advisers had a long-standing use and multiple registrations of the trademarks "CHRYS" and "CHRYSCAPITAL," affirming their proprietary rights. 2.Defendants’ Misrepresentation: The Defendants were found to be dishonestly using the Plaintiff’s trademarks, falsely claiming affiliation with Chryscapital, and promising high returns to investors. This was seen as a deliberate attempt to exploit Chryscapital's goodwill. 3.Likelihood of Confusion and Deception: The Court recognized that the Defendants’ actions were likely to deceive the public, causing confusion and potentially leading to financial harm for those misled by the fraudulent claims. 4.Immediate Relief Justification: Given the urgency and the potential for continued deception and damage, the Court deemed it necessary to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. This immediate relief was crucial to prevent further misuse of the trademarks and protect the Plaintiff's business reputation. Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction An ex-parte ad-interim injunction is a temporary measure granted without the presence of the Defendants, aimed at providing immediate relief to the Plaintiff. This is typically granted when there is a clear case of urgency or potential for irreparable harm. In this case, the Court restrained the Defendants from using "CHRYS," "CHRYSCAPITAL," or any deceptively similar marks in any manner. Conclusion:

The High Court of Delhi's grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Chryscapital Advisers is a significant legal development in the realm of intellectual property protection. By swiftly addressing the unauthorized and deceptive use of the "CHRYSCAPITAL" trademark, the Court has underscored the critical role of judicial oversight in protecting trademarks and preventing fraud.

Case Title: Chryscapital Advisers Vs Raj Lal Kumari

Judgment/Order Date: 29.05.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 475/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

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]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Chotiwala Food And Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Nitin Jain

Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Interim Injunction to Chotiwala Restaurant Against Trademark Infringement

The Delhi High Court has issued an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Chotiwala Food And Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a renowned restaurant operating in Rishikesh since 1958, in its legal battle against Nitin Jain for unauthorized use of the trademark "CHOTIWALA."

Background:

Chotiwala restaurant, established in 1958, is famous for its vegetarian cuisine and distinctive logo depicting a Brahmin with a Bodhi/Choti holding a ‘thali’ in a gesture of serving satvik/shakahari (vegetarian) food. This logo, along with the name "CHOTIWALA," is registered under the Trademark and Copyright Act. Over the past 65 years, the brand has acquired secondary meaning, becoming synonymous with high-quality vegetarian food in Rishikesh.

The plaintiffs have actively protected their trademark, successfully enforcing their rights in previous cases, including CS(OS) 2456/2011 and CS(COMM) 33/2023, both heard before the Delhi High Court.

Plaintiff's Grievance:

The current grievance of the plaintiffs is directed at defendant Nitin Jain, who allegedly adopted the plaintiffs’ marks for his restaurants under the name "MASHOOR CHOTIWALA RESTAURANT." This usage, according to the plaintiffs, infringes upon their registered trademarks and misleads consumers.

Court’s Observations:

Hon’ble Judge Anish Dayal noted that the plaintiffs have made a prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. The court recognized the long-standing use and reputation of the "CHOTIWALA" trademark and acknowledged the potential for consumer confusion due to the defendant’s use of a deceptively similar mark.

Judgment:

The court held that the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiffs, who are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Consequently, the court issued an ex parte interim injunction, restraining the defendant from using the word "CHOTIWALA" as part of their trademark or tradename, or any other mark that is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered "CHOTIWALA" trademark, until the next date of hearing.

Implications:

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Chotiwala Food And Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Jain reinforces the principle that longstanding and well-recognized trademarks deserve robust protection against infringement. The ruling ensures that consumers are not misled by deceptive similarities and upholds the integrity of reputable brands.

Case Title: Chotiwala Food And Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Nitin Jain

Judgment/Order Date: 28.05.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 469/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

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]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Sudheer Sharma

High Court Grants Ex Parte Interim Injunction in Favor of Ambuja Cements Limited Against Fraudulent Use of Trademark

Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ambuja Cements Limited, one of India’s leading manufacturers of cement and construction materials, against unauthorized use of its trademark by Defendants No. 1 to 12, who allegedly created fake websites to engage in phishing activities.

Background:

Ambuja Cements Limited, a prominent player in the cement industry, has been using the trademark “AMBUJA CEMENTS” since 1984. This mark is not only central to the company’s branding but also forms an integral part of its corporate identity.

The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that Defendants No. 1 to 12 had created fraudulent websites using the “AMBUJA CEMENT” trademark. These websites purportedly offered the plaintiff’s products to the public across India, despite the fact that Ambuja Cements Limited exclusively distributes its products through authorized dealers and does not sell online. This deceptive practice was intended to mislead consumers into believing they were purchasing authentic products directly from the plaintiff.

Court’s Observations:

The court examined the evidence, including screenshots and consumer accounts, which indicated that Defendants No. 1 to 12 were unlawfully using the “AMBUJA CEMENT” trademark. These defendants misrepresented themselves as officials or employees of Ambuja Cements Limited, luring unsuspecting consumers into paying significant amounts of money under the false pretense of placing orders for genuine Ambuja Cements products.

Judgment:

Hon’ble Judge Sanjeev Narula, upon considering the submissions and evidence presented, found that there was a prima facie case of trademark infringement and misrepresentation. The court noted that the defendants' actions were aimed at deceiving consumers and tarnishing the plaintiff's reputation.

Accordingly, the court granted an ex parte interim injunction, restraining Defendants No. 1 to 12 from using the “AMBUJA CEMENT” trademark or any deceptive variation thereof. This injunction aims to protect consumers from further harm and preserve the integrity of Ambuja Cements Limited’s brand.

Conclusion:

The High Court’s decision in Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Sudheer Sharma sets a critical precedent in trademark law enforcement, particularly in the digital age where fraudulent online activities are increasingly common.

Case Title: Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Sudheer Sharma

Judgment/Order Date: 29.05.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 469/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

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]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Citizen Watch Company Limited Vs Dineshkumar Laxmanbhai Virda

Similarity of Goods is Not a Sine Qua Non in an Action of Passing Off

Introduction:

The doctrine of passing off is a fundamental aspect of intellectual property law, primarily concerned with protecting the goodwill and reputation of a trademark from misrepresentation. A pivotal issue in passing off cases is whether the goods or services involved must be similar for a claim to be successful. This article examines a recent legal case that underscores the principle that similarity of goods is not a sine qua non (an essential condition) in an action of passing off.

Case Background:

The plaintiff in this case is an internationally reputed company organized under the laws of Japan, known for its CITIZEN brand. The CITIZEN Group has been engaged in watchmaking since 1918 and expanded into the industrial precision machine tools market by 1936. The plaintiff commenced operations in India in 1960 through a collaboration with the Indian Government, managed by HMT.

The defendant, aware of the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation, dishonestly applied for the registration of the trademark "CITIZEN" in Class 07 (related to lathe machines) in 1994 and again in 2010 for the mark "C-TIZEN." The defendant argued that since the plaintiff was known primarily for watches, there could be no confusion or deception regarding lathe machines. The defendant also contended that the term "CITIZEN" is a common, laudatory word, not an invented or coined term, and hence not distinctive enough for exclusive trademark rights.

Legal Issues:

The primary legal issues revolved around:

Whether the similarity of goods is necessary for a passing off action.
Whether the term "CITIZEN" can be protected as a trademark given its common use and dictionary meaning.

Court’s Analysis and Findings:

Trademark Registration Validity:

The court first addressed the validity of the plaintiff's trademark registration. The plaintiff substantiated its claim by providing a Legal Proceeding Certificate (LPC), confirming its registration. This evidence was crucial in establishing the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the "CITIZEN" trademark.

Common Field of Activity Not Necessary:

The court firmly rejected the defendant's argument that the similarity of goods is essential for passing off. The court clarified that the fundamental issue is whether the defendant's use of the mark in relation to lathe Machine results in a likelihood of confusion or deception, causing damage to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. In this case, the plaintiff's trademark "CITIZEN" was found to have substantial goodwill and reputation, not just in watches but broadly due to its extensive market presence and brand recognition. This is the reason why the Court rejected this argument of the defendant that Plaintiff's activities is in relation to watches, while activities of defendant is lathe machine, which plaintiff never manufactured.

Misrepresentation and Likelihood of Confusion:

The court observed that the defendant’s marks "CITIZEN" and "C-TIZEN" were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark, both visually and phonetically. This similarity was likely to cause confusion among consumers, leading them to associate the defendant's lathe machines with the plaintiff’s reputable brand. The court emphasized that the essence of passing off lies in the misrepresentation that leads to public confusion and consequent damage to the plaintiff’s goodwill, irrespective of the nature of the goods.

Plaintiff’s Goodwill and Defendant’s Intent:

The court also noted that the defendant had failed to provide any plausible reason for adopting the "CITIZEN" mark for lathe machines. Given the plaintiff's longstanding and widespread use of the trademark, the court inferred that the defendant's adoption of the mark was dishonest, aimed at capitalizing on the plaintiff’s established reputation.

Delay and Laches:

Addressing the defendant's argument regarding delay and laches, the court found that the plaintiff's delay in initiating legal action did not bar the suit. The delay did not diminish the plaintiff's rights or the potential for public confusion and deception caused by the defendant’s use of the mark.

Conclusion:

This case reaffirms that the similarity of goods is not a prerequisite for a passing off action. The primary consideration is the likelihood of confusion and misrepresentation that damages the plaintiff's goodwill. The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting well-established trademarks from dishonest adoption, regardless of the specific goods or services involved.

Case Title: Citizen Watch Company Limited Vs Dineshkumar Laxmanbhai Virda
Judgment/Order Date: 16.05.2024
Case No. CS(COMM) 56/2015
Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3974
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Jyoti 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]
United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com
Ph No: 9990389539

Casablaca Apparel Vs Polo Ralph Lauren Company

The Intersection of Trademark Rectification and Pending Litigation 

Introduction:

In a recent case , the Petitioner namely Casablanca Apparels Pvt. Ltd. filed a rectification petition seeking to alter the trademark ‘POLO’, which is registered under number 1277784 in class 25, belonging to Polo/Lauren Company L.P. This trademark application was originally filed on 8th April 2004 and granted on 18th January 2023. However, the maintainability of this rectification petition has come under scrutiny due to a related suit, CS (COMM) 523/2022, filed by Polo/Lauren Company L.P. against Casablanca Apparels Pvt. Ltd. This article delves into the legal reasoning behind the High Court's decision to dismiss the rectification petition, examining the interplay between the rectification proceedings and the pending litigation under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act.

Background:

The case at hand involves two primary legal actions: the rectification petition filed by Casablanca Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and the infringement suit initiated by Polo/Lauren Company L.P. The rectification petition seeks to correct or cancel the registration of the trademark ‘POLO’ on grounds that may include non-use, misrepresentation, or prior use by the petitioner. Meanwhile, Polo/Lauren Company L.P.’s infringement suit aims to prevent Casablanca from using the ‘POLO’ mark, alleging that such use constitutes a violation of their trademark rights.

 Legal Framework:

The legal crux of this case lies within the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Section 124. This section deals with the stay of proceedings in cases where the validity of a trademark is questioned. Specifically, Section 124(1)(b)(ii) stipulates that if the issue of trademark validity arises during an infringement suit, the court must stay the proceedings and await the decision of the Registrar or the Appellate Board regarding the validity of the trademark.

The High Court's Decision:

In this instance, the High Court dismissed the rectification petition on the grounds that an application under Section 124 was already pending before the Trial Court. The court reasoned that allowing the rectification petition to proceed concurrently with the ongoing infringement suit would be procedurally improper and could potentially result in conflicting decisions. 

The court's decision hinges on the doctrine of judicial propriety and efficiency. By staying the rectification proceedings, the court ensures that the matter of the trademark’s validity is settled in a consistent and orderly manner. This approach prevents the possibility of contradictory rulings from different judicial bodies, which could undermine the legal process and lead to confusion.

Analysis:

The High Court's ruling underscores the importance of the principle of comity among courts, which dictates that courts should avoid interference with each other’s processes to maintain orderly and efficient adjudication. This principle is particularly pertinent in the realm of intellectual property law, where overlapping jurisdictions and concurrent proceedings are common.

Moreover, the decision aligns with the legislative intent behind Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, which seeks to streamline the adjudication of trademark disputes. By mandating that questions of trademark validity be resolved before the specialized bodies of the Registrar or the Appellate Board, the Act aims to leverage the expertise of these bodies and ensure that the decisions are grounded in a thorough understanding of trademark law.

 Implications:

The implications of this ruling are significant for parties involved in trademark disputes. It signals to litigants that attempts to pursue rectification or cancellation of trademarks during the pendency of related infringement suits are likely to be stayed. This decision also emphasizes the necessity for parties to strategically consider the timing and forum of their legal actions to avoid procedural setbacks.

 Conclusion:

The case of Casablanca Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. Polo/Lauren Company L.P. provides a critical insight into the procedural intricacies of trademark rectification and infringement litigation in India. The High Court’s dismissal of the rectification petition, based on the pending application under Section 124, reinforces the principle of judicial efficiency and the orderly resolution of trademark disputes.

Case Title: Casablaca Apparel Vs Polo Ralph Lauren Company

Order Date: 21.05.2024

Case No. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 68/2024

Neutral Citation:NA

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]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539