Star Scientific Limited Vs Controller of Patent

Background:

The appellant, filed a National Phase Patent Application No. 202017011947 for a "Composition, Methods, and Apparatuses for Catalytic Combustion" based on a PCT Application. The application was examined, and a First Examination Report (FER) was issued. The appellant responded to the FER and amended the claims. However, due to financial difficulties, the appellant's Patent Attorney did not attend a scheduled hearing, and the Controller of Patents and Designs refused the patent application. The appellant sought revival of the application, which was not responded to, leading to this appeal.

Arguments:

Appellant: The detailed reply to the FER should have been considered, and the Controller was obligated to pass a reasoned order. The non-attendance at the hearing should not be considered abandonment, especially since the appellant had requested disposal of the application as per the Patent Act.

Respondent: The appeal is misconceived, and the appellant's failure to attend the hearing and provide a clear reason (beyond financial difficulties) indicates a conscious decision to abandon the application.

Judgment:

The Court found that the Controller's order was not reasoned and did not consider the appellant's detailed response to the FER. The Court emphasized that abandonment requires a conscious act, which was not established in this case. The Court set aside the Controller's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, allowing the appellant to file written submissions within five days of the judgment. The Controller is directed to decide the matter on its merits

Case Citation: Star Scientific Limited Vs Controller of Patent:30.07.2024 :C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 20/2024 : 2024:DHC:2643: Delhi High Court: Minipushkarna: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Pramit Sanghavi Vs Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd

In the High Court of Delhi, CS(COMM) 87/2024, I.A. 32018/2024, Pramit Sanghavi and others (plaintiffs) filed a suit against Energy Beverages Private Limited and another (defendants) seeking an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from using a design for natural mineral water bottles that allegedly infringes on the plaintiffs' registered designs. The plaintiffs, are market leaders in the packaged natural mineral water industry, owning brands like QUA, and have significant sales and advertising expenditures. They hold registered design numbers 281573 and 311139, which are allegedly being infringed by the defendants' "NU" water bottle design.

The defendants contend that their design is significantly different from the plaintiffs' and that the plaintiffs' designs are not original, as they are commonly found in the market. They also argue that the plaintiffs' design registrations are not conclusive and seek cancellation of the registrations under the Designs Act, 2000.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, found that the defendants' bottle design is strikingly similar to the plaintiffs' registered designs, with only minor alterations. The court held that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for infringement and that the defendants have not provided substantive grounds for cancellation of the design registrations. The court granted the plaintiffs an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing design until the suit is resolved.

Case Citation: Pramit Sanghavi Vs Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd.:10.07.2024 :CS(COMM) 87/2024 :Delhi High Court: Saurabh Banerjee: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor Vs Controller Of Patents And Designs

Background:

Hygieia, Inc. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of their patent application for 'Systems, Methods and Devices for Achieving Glycemic Balance' by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The application, filed in 2013, was rejected in 2019 under Sections 2(1)(ja), 3(d), 3(k), and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant's invention aimed to provide treatment guidance for diabetes, with claims based on a U.S. patent application that allowed for method patents, which are non-patentable under Indian law.

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments: The appellant argued that the Patent Controller erred by focusing solely on the objection under Section 59 and not considering other objections in light of their written submissions. They contended that their amended claims did not exceed the original specifications and that the method claims were adequately supported by the original application, including figures and descriptions of the device.

Respondent's Arguments: The respondent maintained that the appellant's claims exceeded the original specifications and that the method claims were not patentable under Indian law.

Judgment:

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to a different controller for de novo consideration. The court emphasized that the claims and specifications must be read together, and the amended claims did not exceed the original specifications. The court directed the new controller to dispose of the matter within six months.

Conclusion:

The High Court of Judicature at Madras overturned the rejection of Hygieia, Inc.'s patent application, highlighting the importance of considering the entirety of the patent application and its amendments in the context of Indian patent law.

Case Citation: Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor Vs Controller Of Patents And Designs:24.05.2024 :AID/5/2023 :Calcutta High Court: Ravi Krishan Kapur: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Hygieia, Inc. Vs. Government of India, Patent Office

Background:

Hygieia, Inc. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of their patent application for 'Systems, Methods and Devices for Achieving Glycemic Balance' by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The application, filed in 2013, was rejected in 2019 under Sections 2(1)(ja), 3(d), 3(k), and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant's invention aimed to provide treatment guidance for diabetes, with claims based on a U.S. patent application that allowed for method patents, which are non-patentable under Indian law.

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments: The appellant argued that the Patent Controller erred by focusing solely on the objection under Section 59 and not considering other objections in light of their written submissions. They contended that their amended claims did not exceed the original specifications and that the method claims were adequately supported by the original application, including figures and descriptions of the device.

Respondent's Arguments: The respondent maintained that the appellant's claims exceeded the original specifications and that the method claims were not patentable under Indian law.

Judgment:

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to a different controller for de novo consideration. The court emphasized that the claims and specifications must be read together, and the amended claims did not exceed the original specifications. The court directed the new controller to dispose of the matter within six months.

Conclusion:

The High Court of Judicature at Madras overturned the rejection of Hygieia, Inc.'s patent application, highlighting the importance of considering the entirety of the patent application and its amendments in the context of Indian patent law.

Case Citation: Hygieia, Inc. Vs. Government of India, Patent Office: (T)CMA(PT) No.153 of 2023 : 12.03.2024:Madras High Court: N. Seshasayee: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Gopal Sabu Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is a miscellaneous criminal case involving a petition for the quashment of an FIR (First Information Report) related to trademark infringement. The case involves Gopal Sabu and others versus the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, with the petitioners seeking to quash FIR No. 1347/2022 registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for alleged infringement of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' by the petitioners.

The background of the case includes a civil suit filed by Rajkumar Sabu, proprietor of M/s. Shiv Trading Company, against the petitioners for trademark infringement. Rajkumar Sabu claims to be the original registered owner of the 'SACHAMOTI' trademark, which is in dispute with the petitioners. The Delhi High Court has issued orders restraining the use of the trademark by the petitioners, but they have continued to sell products under the 'SACHAMOTI' brand, leading to the FIR being filed.

The petitioners argue that the FIR should be quashed because the civil suits regarding the ownership of the trademark are still pending, the mandatory provisions of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act have not been complied with, and the matter is essentially a civil dispute being given a criminal angle. They rely on various judgments to support their arguments, including cases where the High Court has quashed FIRs due to legal bars or mala fide intentions.

The respondents argue that the FIR was registered after obtaining the opinion of the Trade Marks Registry, and the police officer who conducted the search and seizure was authorized to do so. They also contend that the pendency of a civil suit does not bar the registration of a criminal case, and the FIR discloses cognizable offenses committed by the petitioners.

The court, after hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, finds no merit in the petitioners' arguments. The court notes that the opinion from the Trade Marks Authority was obtained before registering the FIR, and the search and seizure were conducted with proper authority. The court also states that the pendency of a civil suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the criminal court, and both proceedings can run independently.

The court dismisses the petition, concluding that the FIR and subsequent proceedings are valid and that there is no abuse of the legal process. The court emphasizes that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the court's process or to secure the ends of justice.

Case Citation: Gopal Sabu Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh : 29.07.2024:Misc Crl Case 43601 of 2024: Madhya Pradesh High Court: Binod Kumar Dwivedi: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Arijit Singh Vs Codible Ventures LLP and Ors

The Commercial Division,of Judicature at Bombay High Court heard Interim Application No. 23560 of 2024 in IPR Suit No. 23443 of 2024, involving Arijit Singh as the Applicant/Plaintiff and Codible Ventures LLP and others as Defendants.

The Plaintiff, a celebrated playback singer from Murshidabad, West Bengal, sought protection of his personality rights against unauthorized commercial exploitation, including the misuse of his name, voice, image, and other attributes. He also claimed violation of moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff has achieved significant success in the music industry and is recognized globally for his work.

The Defendants were accused of using AI models to mimic the Plaintiff's voice and other personality traits without authorization, falsely representing an association with the Plaintiff, selling merchandise bearing his name and image, and creating and sharing GIFs of the Plaintiff's performances. Additionally, certain entities registered domain names using the Plaintiff's name.

The Court recognized the Plaintiff's rights to protect his personality traits and granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendants, restraining them from using the Plaintiff's personality rights for commercial gain. The Defendants were ordered to remove infringing content, cancel or suspend domain names, disclose details of the infringing parties, and cooperate with the Plaintiff. The Court also allowed service of the order by email due to the number of Defendants and the potential unavailability of contact details.

Case Citation: Arijit Singh Vs Codible Ventures LLP and Ors.: 12.07.2024:COM IPR SUIT (L) NO.23443 OF 2024: Bombay High Court: R.I.Chagla: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited

The case involves a dispute over the trademark 'CANDEX-B' applied for by the first respondent, Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals, for pharmaceutical products in Class 5. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, the appellant, opposes the registration of 'CANDEX-B', claiming it is confusingly similar to their existing trademark 'CANDID', which has been in use since 1978-79 for dermatological products.

The appellant argues that the first respondent's adoption of 'CANDEX-B' was dishonest and in bad faith, capitalizing on the goodwill of 'CANDID'. They also argue that the first respondent did not conduct a trademark search before adopting the mark, and that the marks are likely to cause confusion among consumers. The appellant requests the court to set aside the registration of 'CANDEX-B', order the first respondent to bear the costs, and prevent the issuance of the registration certificate pending the appeal.

The first respondent contends that they have been using 'CANDEX-B' since 1997 and are entitled to the benefits of Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act as an honest and concurrent user. They argue that both trademarks are derived from the name of the disease candidiasis and that there is no likelihood of confusion.

The court, after considering the arguments and evidence, concludes that the first respondent's use of 'CANDEX-B' is not bona fide and does not qualify as honest and concurrent use under Section 12. The court finds that there is a likelihood of deception or confusion among the public due to the phonetic similarity of the trademarks and their use in relation to similar products. The court also considers the subsequent declaration of 'CANDID' as a well-known trademark and the importance of preventing confusion in pharmaceutical products.

The court sets aside the impugned order and cancels the registration of 'CANDEX-B', directing the removal of the entry from the register of trademarks

Case Citation: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited: 12.07.2024: (T) CMA (TM) No.40 of 2023: Madras High Court: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Glaxo Group Limited Vs IVA Healthcare Pvt. Ltd

Overview of the Case:

This is a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Glaxo Group Limited (the plaintiffs) against Iva Healthcare Private Limited (the defendant).
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's use of the 'ZENTOVATE' mark infringes upon the plaintiffs' registered trademarks 'BETNOVATE' and 'TENOVATE'.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendant's mark is deceptively similar to their marks, both visually and phonetically, and the defendant has adopted it with the mala fide intention of benefiting from the plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill.

Plaintiffs' Trademark Rights:

BETNOVATE Mark:

The plaintiffs have used the 'BETNOVATE' mark for their pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations for decades.

The 'BETNOVATE' mark is inherently distinctive and has acquired the status of a well-known mark under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention.

The plaintiffs have obtained over 150 registrations for the 'BETNOVATE' mark and its variations (e.g., BETNOVATE-N, BETNOVATE-S, BETNOVATE-GM) in numerous countries.

TENOVATE Mark:

The plaintiffs have been using the 'TENOVATE' mark in India since 1990 for their skin creams.

The plaintiffs' products bearing the 'TENOVATE' marks have been sold through a network of distributors and stockists throughout India, as well as online pharmacies.

Defendant's Alleged Infringement:

The defendant is engaged in manufacturing, marketing, and selling pharmaceutical and medicinal products, including creams, under the 'ZENTOVATE' mark.

The defendant's 'ZENTOVATE' mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' 'BETNOVATE' and 'TENOVATE' marks, particularly due to the common letter combination 'OVATE' and the similar initial letter combinations 'ZENT' and 'BETN'.

The defendant's products are also pharmaceutical and medicinal in nature, and are sold through the same trade channels as the plaintiffs' products, targeting the same consumers.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant has adopted the 'ZENTOVATE' mark with the mala fide intention of benefiting from the plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill.

Court's Interim Order:

The court has granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing products bearing the 'ZENTOVATE' mark.

Case Citation: Glaxo Group Limited Vs IVA Healthcare Pvt. Ltd: 22.07.2024: CS(COMM) 593/2024: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Escorts Ltd Vs Sudhir Kumar

Background and Plaintiff's Allegations:

The plaintiff, Escorts Ltd., is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of various equipment, including railway equipment.

The plaintiff had obtained registered designs for 'AAR-H type Couplers' and 'Buffer Couplers'.

The defendant, Sudhir Kumar, is a former employee of the plaintiff who was working in the Engineering Division responsible for the production of railway equipment.

The plaintiff apprehended that the defendant, after leaving the plaintiff's employment, had started a proprietary concern (defendant no. 2) and intended to use the plaintiff's registered designs to participate in a railway tender for supplying AAR-H type Couplers.

Ex-parte Ad-interim Injunction Granted:

Based on the plaintiff's apprehension, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using or transferring the designs and data of the plaintiff's registered designs of AAR-H type Couplers.

The court also appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises and seize any infringing goods or materials.

Findings from Local Commissioner's Report:

The Local Commissioner's report identified 24 infringing parts of the Couplers at the defendants' premises and also listed the machinery used for manufacturing the Couplers.

Photographs of the infringing goods were taken, and the industrial drawings/designs of the Couplers were seized and handed over to the defendants.

Court's Observations and Conclusion:

The ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted merely on the basis of the fact that the defendant was a former employee and had applied for a railway tender, without any prima facie finding of design infringement.

The 'imminent threat of substantial damages', which was the basis for granting the quia timet action, is no longer present as the tender in question has concluded.

The plaintiff has not been able to demonstrate how the products photographed by the Local Commissioner infringe the plaintiff's registered designs, despite having access to the seized designs.

In the absence of any prima facie proof of infringement, the court concluded that the ad-interim injunction cannot be sustained any longer and vacated the order dated 5th July, 2018.

Case Citation: Escorts Ltd Vs Sudhir Kumar: 20.05.2024: CS(COMM) 271/2019: Delhi High Court: Prathiba M Singh: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Elanco Tieresundheit AG Vs Assitant Controller of Patent

This is a judgment from the High Court of Delhi in the case of Elanco Tiergesundheit AG versus The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, dated July 30, 2024. The case involves an appeal by Elanco Tiergesundheit AG against the rejection of their patent application for a method of preparing live vaccines by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The patent application, originally filed by Lohmann Animal Health Gmbh and later assigned to Elanco, was rejected on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act, 1970.

The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed mechanically, without proper consideration of their submissions. They pointed out that the Assistant Controller's order was a verbatim copy of the hearing notice, indicating a lack of independent reasoning. The respondent defended the rejection, citing the same grounds mentioned in the order.

Justice Mini Pushkarna, after reviewing the documents, found that the impugned order was indeed passed without independent reasoning, merely reproducing the contents of the hearing notice. The court noted that the respondent had not applied their mind to the appellant's submissions and had not provided a reasoned order. The court also emphasized the importance of recording reasons in decision-making as a basic tenet of natural justice, citing Supreme Court judgments.

The court set aside the impugned order and restored the patent application to its original position. The matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, with instructions to provide a reasoned order within four months. The court directed that the matter be heard by an officer other than the one who passed the impugned order.

Case Citation: Elanco Tieresundheit AG Vs Assitant Controller of Patent: 30.07.2024: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 479/2022: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited Vs. Zentech Pharmaceuticals

Trademark Infringement Case: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited Vs. Zentech Pharmaceuticals

Key Arguments and Insights:

Trademark Infringement:

The plaintiff, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, owns the registered trademark "ZEDEX" for its cough syrup product since 1983.

The defendant, Zentech Pharmaceuticals, has adopted a deceptively similar trademark "ZEEDUX" for its cough syrup product containing the same formulation.

The defendant's use of a phonetically similar trademark and copying the plaintiff's trade dress, packaging, color scheme, and layout is to impersonate the plaintiff's well-known "ZEDEX" brand and pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.

Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition:

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has copied the plaintiff's unique and distinctive trade dress, packaging, color scheme, get-up, and layout for its "ZEDEX" brand, which the defendant has adopted for its "ZEEDUX" product.

This is done with the malafide and dishonest intention to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's well-known "ZEDEX" trademark.

Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience:

The court has found that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case in its favor and that the balance of convenience is also in favor of the plaintiff.

The court has granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or using the trademark "ZEEDUX" or any other deceptively similar mark that may infringe the plaintiff's "ZEDEX" trademark.

Case Citation: Dr.Reddys Laboratories Vs Zentech Pharmaceuticals: 22.07.2024: CS(COMM) 588/2024: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Dr.Reddys Laboratories Vs IKon Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.

Copyright Infringement Lawsuit: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v. Ikon Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.

Overview of the Case:

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited (the plaintiff) has filed a lawsuit against Ikon Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. (the defendants) for copyright infringement and passing off.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have copied the trade dress, packaging, color scheme, and layout of the plaintiff's 'PRACTIN' strip packaging for their product 'PACYPON'.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants have intentionally copied the distinctive elements of the plaintiff's packaging to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the 'PRACTIN' brand.

Key Arguments and Evidence:

Plaintiff's Arguments:

The trademark 'PRACTIN' is a coined word with no dictionary meaning, and the plaintiff has been using the distinctive packaging since 1986.

The plaintiff's 'PRACTIN' strip packaging features a distinctive orange color scheme, layout, and get-up.

The defendants' 'PACYPON' strip packaging is a blatant copy of the plaintiff's 'PRACTIN' packaging, including the color scheme, layout, and overall get-up.

The defendants have admitted in an email that they will withdraw and not use the impugned packaging for their business anymore.

Court's Observations:

The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, in a previous order, recognized the plaintiff's packaging and trade dress as a source identifier and protected as an artistic work under the Copyright Act.

The Court found that the similarities in the packaging of the two products are likely to cause confusion for an average consumer with imperfect recollection, even upon closer examination.

Court's Order:

The Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

The defendants are restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling, or offering for sale the 'PACYPON' product using the identical or substantially similar strip packaging, trade dress, get-up, and layout as the plaintiff's 'PRACTIN' product.

Case Citation: Dr.Reddys Laboratories Vs IKon Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd: 15.07.2024: CS(COMM) 571/2024: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

Dabur India Vs Kuldeep Gupta

Trademark Infringement Case: Dabur India Ltd. vs. Mr. Kuldeep Gupta

Plaintiff's (Dabur India Ltd.) Contentions:

Trademark and Copyright Rights:

Dabur India Ltd. is the owner of the registered trademark "DABUR RED" for its toothpaste product, which has acquired significant goodwill and reputation over the years.

The packaging, trade dress, and get-up of the "DABUR RED" toothpaste are original artistic works protected under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Dabur India Ltd. has valid and subsisting trademark registrations for the "DABUR RED" mark, which it has periodically renewed.

Defendant's (Mr. Kuldeep Gupta) Alleged Infringement:

The defendant, who is the sole-proprietor of Real Herbal Cosmetics, has registered the mark "Devson Care Red" in Class 3.

The defendant's "Devson Care Red" toothpaste product has a label/carton/packaging/get-up that is deceptively similar to Dabur India Ltd.'s "DABUR RED" toothpaste.

The defendant has cleverly imitated and substantially reproduced the plaintiff's trademark, packaging, and trade dress, causing irreparable loss, injury, damage, and prejudice to Dabur India Ltd.

Plaintiff's Claim and Relief Sought:

Dabur India Ltd. has established a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience is in its favor. Dabur India Ltd. will suffer irreparable injury unless the defendant is restrained from carrying out its activities.

Dabur India Ltd. seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, offering for sale, exporting, or advertising its "Devson Care Red" toothpaste under the infringing label/carton/packaging/get-up.

Court's Observations and Order:

The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant and its associates from selling, offering for sale, exporting, or advertising the "Devson Care Red" toothpaste under the infringing label/carton/packaging/get-up.

Case Citation: Dabur India Vs Kuldeep Gupta: 18.07.2024: CS(COMM) 579/2024: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]