Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd Vs Registrar Of Trade Marks

Placement of Order on Website by Registrar of Trademark Does Not Constitute Communication of order

In the realm of intellectual property law, the proper communication of decisions by authorities is crucial to ensure due process and fair treatment of applicants. The recent case involving the petitioner seeking the setting aside of impugned orders dated 25th November 2021 and 18th May 2022 in Application No. IRDI-4998621 highlights the significance of adhering to procedural requirements in the communication of decisions. This case underscores the principle that merely placing an order on a website does not constitute effective communication to the affected party, as mandated by the applicable rules and legal precedents.

Background of the Case:

The petitioner's trademark application was provisionally refused by the respondent on 10th June 2021, on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Following this provisional refusal, the petitioner sought a review of the order on 24th December 2021. This review application was summarily dismissed by the Senior Examiner through a non-speaking order dated 18th May 2022.

Issue of Communication:

A critical issue arose when the review order dated 18th May 2022 was merely uploaded on the Registrar’s website without being communicated directly to the petitioner as required under Rule 111 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that they only became aware of the review order on 18th January 2024 and subsequently filed the petition expeditiously on 24th January 2024, thus there was no delay in filing.

Court’s Observations:

The court allowed the petition, observing that there was no delay in filing, particularly considering Rule 111 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017. This rule expressly mandates the communication of the decision by the Registrar to the affected party. The court referenced the Division Bench decision in the case of Institute of Cost Accountants of India vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., 2013 (3) Mh.L.J. 418, which held that mere placement of a notice on the website does not satisfy the requirement of communication under the Rules.

Legal Precedents and Rules:

In the Institute of Cost Accountants case, the court held that the Registrar of Trademarks had failed to indicate any obligation for the petitioner to inspect the website daily. There was no rule or practice that legally bound the petitioner to take notice of postings on the Registrar’s website. Thus, the petitioner could not be imputed with the knowledge of the decision simply because it was posted online.

Similarly, in the present case, the respondent did not follow the required procedure to directly communicate the decision to the petitioner. This failure to comply with Rule 111 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017, rendered the mere online posting of the order insufficient for legal purposes.

Implications of Non-Communication:

The failure to communicate decisions properly has significant implications. It deprives the affected party of the opportunity to respond or take appropriate legal action within the stipulated time. This procedural lapse can lead to the setting aside of decisions, as seen in the present case, where the court found no delay in filing the petition due to the lack of proper communication.

Author’s Ending Note:

This case reinforces the necessity for authorities to adhere strictly to procedural rules when communicating decisions. The principle that merely placing an order on a website does not constitute effective communication protects applicants from procedural unfairness and ensures that they are duly informed of decisions affecting their rights. It is a reminder that proper and direct communication is a fundamental aspect of administrative fairness and legal compliance in intellectual property law.

Conclusion:

The court’s decision to allow the petition highlights the importance of following established procedures for communication. This ensures that all parties are fairly treated and have the opportunity to respond appropriately to decisions that impact their legal rights. The adherence to Rule 111 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017, and similar provisions is essential for maintaining the integrity and fairness of the legal process in trademark registration and other administrative proceedings.

Case Citation: Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd Vs Registrar Of Trade Marks: 14.06.2024: Civil Misc.Petition 6676 of 2024:2024:BHC:-OS-8730:Bombay High Court: R.I.Chagla. H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Mob No.:+91-9990389539

Rashi Santosh Soni Vs K G Marketing India

Fabrication of Documents Prior to Filing of Trademark Suit and Proceedings Under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

In the present case, the issue at hand involves the admitted fabrication of newspapers by Mr. Karan Kumar, the proprietor of KG Marketing, prior to filing a trademark suit. Mr. Kumar has acknowledged that the newspapers dated 17th June 2016 and 12th July 2016, submitted by him, were fabricated. This raises the pertinent legal question of whether Mr. Kumar’s actions warrant proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Background:

Section 340 CrPC is designed to address offenses related to false evidence and offenses against public justice committed in relation to proceedings in any court. It mandates that if the court is of the opinion that an inquiry should be made into any offense referred to in Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, it must record a finding to that effect and make a complaint in writing to a Magistrate having jurisdiction.

Key Judicial Precedents:

Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah [(2005) 4 SCC 370]:

In Iqbal Singh Marwah, the Supreme Court distinguished between offenses committed prior to the initiation of legal proceedings and those occurring during the course of such proceedings. The court held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, which pertains to offenses relating to documents produced or given in evidence in a proceeding, does not apply to offenses committed prior to the initiation of the proceeding.

Bandekar Brothers Private Limited vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni and Others [2020] 10 S.C.R. 1075:

In Bandekar Brothers, the Supreme Court provided clarity on the application of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC read with Section 340 CrPC concerning allegations of forgery and fabrication. The court highlighted that if a document initially forged has a direct connection to the suit, Section 340 CrPC can be invoked.

Analysis:

In the current case, the fabricated newspapers were presented to falsely establish prior use of a trademark. These documents were initially fabricated and submitted to the court, leading to an ex-parte injunction order, which was subsequently vacated upon discovery of the fabrication. The nexus between the forged documents which were forged before filing in the court and the court proceedings is evident, as the fabricated evidence was used to secure judicial relief.

Applicability of Section 340 CrPC:

Section 340 CrPC stipulates that if the court believes an inquiry is warranted for an offense referred to in Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, a complaint should be registered. This applies to offenses committed: In relation to a proceeding in that court, In respect of a document produced in that court, or

In respect of a document given in evidence in a proceeding in that court.

In this scenario, the fabricated newspapers, which were used to obtain a judicial order, fall squarely within the ambit of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC.

Court’s Decision:

Given the admission of fabrication by Mr. Kumar and the false affidavit filed in court, the court has a basis to proceed under Section 340 CrPC. The authenticity of the documents was vouched for by Mr. Kumar, who later admitted to their fabrication. Thus, the offense can be considered to have occurred during the court proceedings.

Conclusion:

The court is justified in directing the registration of a complaint under Section 340 CrPC. The Registrar General is instructed to lodge a complaint with the concerned Judicial Magistrate and transmit all relevant documents for further legal action. This decision underscores the seriousness of forgery and fabrication in judicial proceedings and ensures that such offenses are addressed with the full force of the law.

Author's Note:

This case highlights the critical importance of honesty and integrity in judicial processes. Fabrication of evidence not only undermines the judicial system but also erodes public trust. The court’s decision to proceed under Section 340 CrPC serves as a stern reminder that legal proceedings must be conducted with the utmost integrity, and any deviation will attract stringent legal consequences.

Case Citation: Rashi Santosh Soni Vs K G Marketing India: 02.07.2024: CS COMM 18 of 2023 : 2024:DHC:4887:Delhi High Court: Prathiba M Singh, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539

Donguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd. Vs Anand Aggarwal

Fabrication of Invoices at Interim Stage in Trademark Dispute

The recent interim ruling in a trademark dispute case sheds light on the complexities and critical considerations in adjudicating trademark rights, particularly in scenarios involving alleged fabrication of evidence. This case revolves around the contested trademark "HUALI," used in relation to furniture components.

Plaintiff's Trademark History:

The Plaintiff first adopted the trademark “HUALI” in 2004 internationally and subsequently in 2007 within India. The Plaintiff has used this mark consistently and extensively in relation to furniture components. To secure their rights in India, the Plaintiff filed for registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, through application No. 2777522 dated July 21, 2014. This application is currently pending consideration and has been opposed by Defendant No. 1. Additionally, the Plaintiff has secured registration for their device mark "HUAFULI" under No. 2842353 in Class 20.

Defendant's Trademark Maneuvering:

The Defendants’ adoption and use of the identical trademark “HUALI” for identical goods has aggrieved the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 initially applied for registration of the mark “HUALI” through application No. 3925098 dated August 24, 2018, on a ‘Proposed to be Used’ basis. However, shortly before opposing the Plaintiff's trademark application, Defendant No. 1 strategically amended their application to claim usage dating back to August 24, 2008.

Defendant No. 1 withdrew their initial application and re-applied for registration of the mark “HUALI” through application No. 4146654, maintaining the claimed usage date of August 24, 2008. This subsequent application, which has since been granted, was filed on the same date that Defendant No. 1 opposed the Plaintiff’s trademark application. Notably, this second application was not mentioned in the notice of opposition, hindering the Plaintiff’s ability to contest it.

Questionable Documentation:

The trademark “HUALI” is currently registered under Defendant No. 1's name. The Plaintiff has initiated a passing off action, asserting their prior use and directly challenging the validity of this registration on multiple grounds.

Several bills of lading presented by the Defendants have raised suspicions:

Bills of Lading Predating Entity Existence:

The bills dated June 25, 2009, December 19, 2010, and July 26, 2011, list Defendant No. 1’s company (All Star Co.) as the shipper and Defendant No. 3 (Kalkaji Glasses Pvt. Ltd.) as the consignee. However, All Star Co. was incorporated in China on May 23, 2014, and Defendant No. 3 was incorporated on January 29, 2010, receiving their Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) only on December 27, 2012. These dates establish that the bills of lading predate the official existence of both entities, rendering them prima facie not genuine.

GST Anomalies:

Further bills dated August 26, 2012, October 18, 2013, and August 17, 2014, mention All Star Co. as the shipper and Defendant No. 4 (Kalkaji Enterprises) as the consignee. These documents list the GST number of Defendant No. 4, GSTIN 19AAIFK4362M2ZT, despite the GST regime being introduced in India only in 2016, making these entries anachronistic.

Court's Prima Facie Opinion:

The temporal anomalies in the Defendants’ documentation suggest potential manipulation and fabrication, seriously undermining the credibility of their assertions. Defendant No. 1 explicitly acknowledged that exports to Defendant No. 2 only commenced in 2015, contradicting Defendant No. 2's claims of using the “HUALI” brand since 2008.

Given these inconsistencies and the dubious nature of the evidence presented, the court, in its prima facie opinion, found the documents produced by the Defendants to be forged and fabricated. Consequently, the court determined that the Defendants’ adoption of the identical “HUALI” trademark was a dishonest attempt to deceive consumers into believing their products were associated with or originated from the Plaintiff.

Interim Injunction Granted:

In light of these findings, the court concluded that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction. This ruling prevents the Defendants from using the “HUALI” trademark, thereby safeguarding the Plaintiff’s trademark rights until the final resolution of the case.

Author's Ending Note:

This case underscores the critical importance of genuine and credible documentation in trademark disputes. The court's meticulous scrutiny of the Defendants' evidence, particularly the bills of lading, highlights the judiciary's role in preventing the manipulation of records to establish trademark rights fraudulently. The decision to grant an interim injunction reflects a commitment to maintaining fair competition and protecting the legitimate rights of trademark holders.

Case Citation: Donguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd. Vs Anand Aggarwal: 01.07.2024: CS COM 229 of 2023 : 2024:DHC:4878:Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539

Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs V-Guard Industries Limited

Maintainability of Design Rectification by Way of Counterclaim in a Design Infringement Suit

In the context of intellectual property law, the maintainability of design rectification via counterclaims in design infringement suits presents a significant legal issue. This article delves into whether a defendant can file a design rectification petition by way of a counterclaim in a design infringement suit, against the backdrop of the Designs Act, 2000, and pertinent judicial pronouncements.

Background of the Case:

The present suit involves allegations of design piracy by the defendant concerning designs registered in favor of the plaintiff under Registration Nos. 296178, 296179, and 296180. During the pendency of the proceedings, the defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation and expunction of these registered designs from the Register of Designs. Additionally, the defendant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking a stay on the operation and effect of the contested designs.

Plaintiff's Objections:

Lack of Provisions in the Designs Act:

The plaintiff argued that the Designs Act does not provide for the filing of a counterclaim. They highlighted that, per Section 19, the revocation and cancellation of a registered design must be raised before the Controller of Designs.

Grounds of Defense under Section 22(3):

The plaintiff acknowledged that Section 22(3) allows the grounds for cancellation under Section 19(1) to be used as a defense in a piracy suit. However, they contended that this does not extend to filing a counterclaim for revocation, which should be directed exclusively to the Controller of Designs.

Legislative Intent:

The plaintiff pointed out that under the Designs Act of 1911, petitions for cancellation could be brought before the High Court, a provision that was consciously altered in the 2000 Act, conferring such jurisdiction exclusively to the Controller.

Defendant's Argument:

The defendant relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in S.D. Containers Indore Vs. Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd (2021) 3 SCC 289. In this case, Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. (MTPL) had instituted a suit against S.D. Containers Indore (SDC) for infringement of its registered designs. SDC, in its defense, claimed invalidity of the designs and filed a substantive counterclaim for their cancellation.

The Commercial Court transferred the suit to the High Court, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, which permits a defendant to seek design cancellation, mandates the court to transfer the suit, implicitly allowing counterclaims for design cancellation within the purview of the court.

Implication of Supreme Court S.D. Containers:

The decision of Supreme Court in S.D. Containers effectively settled the issue of maintainability of design rectification via counterclaims in design infringement suits. By affirming the Commercial Court's decision to transfer both the infringement suit and the counterclaim to the High Court, the Supreme Court underscored the viability of such counterclaims. This ruling ensures that defendants in infringement suits can seek design rectification without being compelled to initiate separate proceedings before the Controller of Designs.

Conclusion:

In light of this judicial precedent, the plaintiff's objection to the maintainability of the counterclaim in the present suit was rejected. The Supreme Court's interpretation harmonizes the procedural aspects of design law, allowing for a more integrated and efficient resolution of design disputes. This ruling reflects a significant shift towards a more defendant-friendly approach in design infringement cases, enabling a holistic adjudication process that encompasses both infringement and validity issues in a single forum.

Author's Note:

The decision in S.D. Containers has broad implications for the landscape of design law in India. It introduces an understanding of the Designs Act, 2000, promoting a balanced approach that considers the interests of both plaintiffs and defendants. By facilitating the counterclaim mechanism within the framework of design infringement suits, the judiciary has paved the way for more streamlined and just resolutions of design disputes. This development is a testament to the evolving nature of intellectual property law and its responsiveness to the dynamic needs of the legal and business communities.

Case Citation: Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs V-Guard Industries Limited: 08.02.2023: CS COM 567 of 2021 : 2023:DHC:000960:Delhi High Court: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539

Upkarma Ayurveda Vs Rasayanam Enterprises

Passing Off in Relation to Similar Background Colour of Product Packaging

Introduction:

The doctrine of passing off is a vital aspect of intellectual property law, primarily aimed at protecting the goodwill and reputation of a business. This legal principle prevents one party from misrepresenting their goods or services as those of another, thereby misleading consumers. A recent case that highlights this doctrine involves the plaintiff, Upakarma Ayurveda, and the defendant, Rasayanam, focusing on the similarity in the background colour of their product packaging. The case underscores the significance of trade dress and the potential for consumer confusion arising from similar packaging designs.

Case Background:

The plaintiff, Upakarma Ayurveda, holds a registered device mark for "UPAKARMA AYURVEDA PURE SHILAJIT." The plaintiff's grievance centers on the defendant's use of the mark "RASAYANAM PURE SHILAJIT," specifically the similarity in the background colour of the packaging. The defendant, during the pendency of the proceedings, obtained registration for their device mark "RASAYANAM" (Registration No. 4591737 in Class 5) on a 'proposed to be used' basis. The crux of the plaintiff's complaint was not the usage of the word mark "RASAYANAM" but rather the defendant's use of a similar trade dress, which included a similar background colour.

The Importance of Background Colour:

In this case, the court emphasized the importance of background colour in the packaging of consumer products. The background colour plays a crucial role in consumer perception, particularly when products are stacked side by side on supermarket or shop shelves. An average consumer, with imperfect or hazy recollection, might be deceived into picking one product over another due to the similarity in background colours, thus falling within the realm of passing off.

The plaintiff contended that their product's packaging, which used a light beige/skin colour (Hex: FCE7CC), was adopted prior to the defendant's use of a similar shade. The defendant argued that their packaging used a light green colour, dark shade (Hex: F0E8B7). While technically different, the court acknowledged that the colour shades were similar enough to cause confusion at a casual glance.

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis focused on several key aspects:

Consumer Confusion:

The primary concern was the likelihood of consumer confusion due to the similar background colours. The court noted that the similarity in packaging could mislead consumers, particularly those with imperfect recollection, into believing the products originated from the same source.

Trade Dress and Deceptive Similarity:

The court examined the overall trade dress of the products, including the background colour, and concluded that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's. This similarity, combined with the identical nature of the products, increased the potential for consumer confusion.

Injunction and Remedies:

The court observed that the defendant had introduced a new packaging for their 10gm product with a distinctive dark brown colour, which the plaintiff did not contest. This indicated that the defendant could use different packaging without infringing on the plaintiff's trade dress. The insistence on using a beige or similar background for the 20gm product was deemed unnecessary and likely to cause confusion.

Conclusion:

The court ultimately granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Upakarma Ayurveda, restraining the defendant, Rasayanam, from using the similar background colour in their product packaging. This case underscores the significance of trade dress in protecting the goodwill and reputation of a business. It highlights the importance of distinctive packaging in preventing consumer confusion and upholding the principles of fair competition.

In essence, the case reiterates that even subtle similarities in packaging, such as background colour, can lead to passing off claims if they create a likelihood of consumer confusion. Businesses must be vigilant in designing their product packaging to ensure it is distinctive and does not infringe on the trade dress of others. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the complexities involved in intellectual property law and the need for careful consideration of all elements that contribute to a product's identity in the marketplace.

Case Citation: Upkarma Ayurveda Vs Rasayanam Enterprises: 22.03.2024: CS COM 834 of 2024 : 2024:DHC:2374:Delhi High Court: Anish Dayal, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com

Mob No.:+91-9990389539

Srmb Srijan Private Limited Vs Uma Shankar Jaiswal

Trade Mark Infringement in Relation to Pattern of a Product

Background:

The case in question involves a well-known company engaged in the manufacturing, selling, and distribution of construction materials, including Thermo-Mechanically Treated (TMT) bars. This company, the plaintiff, has been producing TMT bars with a distinctive “X-ribs” surface pattern since 2001, a feature that has become synonymous with their brand.

The plaintiff holds several registered trademarks, including the wordmark "X-RIBS" (registration No. 1304153, dated August 20, 2004) and the SRMB 3-D Device mark featuring the “X-ribs” pattern (registration dated September 20, 2020). These registrations confer exclusive rights to use these marks on their products.

In January 2020, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was manufacturing, selling, and advertising TMT bars with an identical or deceptively similar “X-ribs” pattern. This led to the filing of a trademark infringement suit, alleging that the defendant was unlawfully using the plaintiff's registered marks.

Legal Analysis:

The central issue in this case is the alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s registered pattern trademarks by the defendant. Trademark infringement occurs when an unauthorized party uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, potentially leading to consumer confusion and dilution of the original trademark's value.

Plaintiff's Argument:

The plaintiff argued that they have acquired common law rights to the “X-RIBS” pattern/trademark/trade dress through extensive use since 2001. These rights, coupled with their registered trademarks, grant them exclusive rights to use the “X-ribs” pattern on their TMT bars. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s use of the identical “X-ribs” pattern was intended to mislead consumers into believing that the defendant’s products were associated with or endorsed by the plaintiff, thereby capitalizing on the plaintiff’s goodwill.

The plaintiff further argued that the defendant’s actions constituted a deliberate attempt to pass off their TMT bars as those of the plaintiff. This misrepresentation could deceive the general public and harm the plaintiff’s reputation and business interests.

Court's Findings:

The court conducted a comparative analysis of the marks used by both parties. It was evident that the defendant had cleverly used the pattern trademark “X-Ribs” in a manner that closely mimicked the plaintiff’s registered pattern mark. The court noted that the plaintiff had established common law rights to the “X-Ribs” pattern through continuous and extensive use, further solidifying their claim to exclusive use of the mark.

The court held that the defendant’s use of the “X-ribs” pattern on their TMT bars constituted trademark infringement under Section 29(4) (a), (b), and (c) of the Trade Marks Act. These sections address the unauthorized use of a registered trademark in a way that is likely to cause confusion, deception, or association with the registered owner’s goods or services.

The court observed that the defendant’s actions were likely to cause confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that the defendant’s TMT bars were either produced by the plaintiff or were a variant of the plaintiff’s products. This misrepresentation was deemed a deliberate attempt to appropriate the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. In light of the evidence presented, the court decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The court ruled that the defendant’s use of the “X-ribs” pattern infringed upon the plaintiff’s registered pattern trademarks and was likely to cause confusion and deception among the general public.

Conclusion:

The plaintiff’s ability to demonstrate long-term use and registration of the “X-Ribs” pattern was crucial in securing a favorable judgment. It also highlights the courts' role in enforcing trademark rights and deterring infringing activities that exploit established goodwill. This decision reinforces the principle that trademarks, including distinctive product patterns, are vital assets deserving robust legal protection.

Case Citation: Srmb Srijan Private Limited Vs Uma Shankar Jaiswal: 25.06.2024: CS-COM 224 of 2024 : Calcutta High Court: Krishna Rao, H.J.

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Mob No.:+91-9990389539