Biotyx Medical Shenzhen Co., Ltd. Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design

Suggested SEO Titles

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Patent Refusal for Absorbable Stent: Detailed Analysis of Biotyx Medical Shenzhen Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents

Inventive Step and Hindsight Analysis in Patent Law: Delhi High Court’s Ruling on Absorbable Stent Patent Application

Patent Rejection for Lack of Inventive Step Quashed by Delhi High Court: Biotyx Medical Case Explained

Delhi High Court Clarifies Test of Obviousness and Inventive Step Under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act

Absorbable Stent Patent Dispute: Delhi High Court on Proper Evaluation of Prior Art and Inventive Step

Reasoned Orders in Patent Cases: Delhi High Court Remands Absorbable Stent Patent Application for Fresh Consideration

How Prior Art Must Be Analysed in Patent Examination: Delhi High Court’s Landmark Biotyx Medical Decision

Delhi High Court Reiterates Principles Governing Inventive Step, Obviousness and Hindsight Analysis in Patent Law

---

Biotyx Medical Shenzhen Co., Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design: Delhi High Court Reaffirms Proper Assessment of Inventive Step and Prior Art Analysis in Patent Examination

Introduction

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Biotyx Medical Shenzhen Co., Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design is an important judgment concerning the examination of patent applications on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. The case arose from the rejection of a patent application relating to an absorbable cardiovascular stent by the Patent Office. The Court examined whether the Assistant Controller had correctly applied the legal principles governing inventive step, obviousness, prior art analysis and the requirement of passing a reasoned order.

The judgment is significant because it reiterates that a patent application cannot be rejected merely by stating that the invention is obvious in view of prior art documents. The Patent Office must explain how a person skilled in the art would actually move from the prior art to the claimed invention. The Court emphasized that patent examination must be based on a proper legal analysis and not on assumptions, hindsight reasoning or hypothetical conclusions.

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Biotyx Medical Shenzhen Co., Ltd., is a Chinese company engaged in developing minimally invasive medical devices for treatment of cardiovascular diseases. The company filed Indian National Phase Patent Application No. 201917030431 titled “Absorbable Stent” on 27 July 2019. The claimed priority date was 31 December 2016. A request for examination was filed on the same date and the application was published on 25 October 2019. The First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 18 March 2021, to which a response was filed on 7 September 2021. A hearing notice was subsequently issued on 5 January 2024, hearing took place on 6 February 2024 and post-hearing submissions were filed on 20 February 2024. Thereafter, the Assistant Controller refused the application on 4 April 2024 under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970.

The invention related to an absorbable vascular stent used in treatment of cardiovascular diseases. According to the applicant, the invention sought to solve a long-standing technical problem in the field of absorbable stents. Existing absorbable stents often faced a trade-off between a shorter corrosion and absorption cycle and sufficient mechanical strength. If the stent degraded quickly, its supporting strength reduced. Conversely, if greater strength was provided, degradation became slower. The invention claimed to achieve a balance between these competing requirements through a specific structural arrangement involving wave-shaped rings, supporting struts and matrix volume per unit vascular area.

The Patent Office refused the application by holding that the claimed invention lacked inventive step in light of two prior art references, namely D1 (US Patent No. 9,427,344 B2) and D2 (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0265438 A1). According to the Controller, a skilled person could combine the teachings of these documents and arrive at the claimed invention without exercising inventive ingenuity.

Aggrieved by the refusal, the applicant filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Dispute Before the Court

The primary dispute before the Court was whether the Assistant Controller had correctly concluded that the claimed absorbable stent lacked inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.

The appellant argued that neither D1 nor D2 disclosed the inventive concept underlying the claimed invention. It was submitted that D1 related to polymer-based absorbable stents designed primarily to address immunogenicity and flexibility concerns, whereas the present invention involved metal-based absorbable stents that achieved a specific balance between corrosion cycle and mechanical strength. Similarly, D2 disclosed a frustum-shaped scaffold having varying mechanical properties over its length, whereas the present invention related to a cylindrical stent having different structural characteristics. The appellant contended that the Controller had failed to identify any teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art that would lead a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention.

The Patent Office defended the refusal order by arguing that D1 and D2 disclosed substantially similar absorbable stent structures. According to the Controller, matrix volume per unit vascular area and strut length were well-known design parameters in vascular stent technology and the claimed invention merely represented an obvious optimization of known features. It was further argued that a skilled person would naturally combine the teachings of D1 and D2 to arrive at the claimed invention.

Thus, the core issue was whether the Controller had properly applied the law relating to inventive step and obviousness.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge

Justice Jyoti Singh carefully examined both the impugned order and the submissions made by the parties. The Court found serious deficiencies in the reasoning adopted by the Patent Office.

The Court first noted that the invention sought to achieve a balance between two conflicting objectives: reducing the corrosion and absorption cycle of the stent while simultaneously maintaining adequate mechanical strength and radial support. The Court observed that the appellant had specifically argued that the inventive concept lay in the relationship between matrix volume per unit vascular area and the section length of supporting struts, which together achieved the desired balance.

The Court observed that although the Controller had recorded the appellant’s submissions regarding D1, those submissions were never actually analysed in the reasoning section of the order. Justice Singh described this omission as a glaring error and a violation of principles of natural justice because the Patent Office had effectively ignored crucial arguments advanced by the applicant.

The Court further found that the Controller had not adequately addressed the appellant’s argument that D2 disclosed a polymer-based scaffold whereas the claimed invention involved a metal-based absorbable matrix. The Patent Office had relied upon a general disclosure in paragraph 204 of D2 mentioning bio-erodible metals. However, the Court noted that the appellant had specifically argued that the essential claim of D2 was directed towards polymer-based scaffolds. This important distinction had not been properly considered by the Controller.

A major criticism made by the Court concerned the Controller’s conclusion that if the frustum-shaped scaffold disclosed in D2 were converted into a cylindrical scaffold, its properties would become similar to those of the claimed invention. Justice Singh held that this conclusion was entirely hypothetical and unsupported by any reasoning. Patent refusals cannot be based upon assumptions or speculative reasoning. More importantly, the Court found that this approach amounted to hindsight analysis, which is impermissible in patent law.

The Court observed that the Patent Office had failed to demonstrate why a skilled person would be motivated to modify D2 in the manner suggested. Mere structural similarities between prior art documents and the claimed invention are not sufficient. What is required is a clear explanation of how the prior art teaches, suggests or motivates the claimed advancement.

Discussion of Earlier Judgments and Legal Principles Relied Upon

Justice Jyoti Singh relied heavily upon earlier decisions of the Delhi High Court concerning inventive step and patent examination.

The Court referred to Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. In that case, the Court had held that while rejecting a patent application for lack of inventive step, the Controller must analyse three elements: the invention disclosed in the prior art, the invention disclosed in the application under consideration, and the manner in which the claimed invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Without such analysis, rejection would be contrary to Section 2(1)(ja) itself.

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla & Brothers, where it was held that passing a reasoned and speaking order is an essential aspect of the doctrine of audi alteram partem and natural justice. The Court emphasized that application of mind and recording reasons are indispensable components of fair decision-making.

Reference was also made to Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court reiterated that application of mind and recording reasons are fundamental requirements of natural justice.

The Court further discussed the detailed principles laid down in Avery Dennison Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs. That judgment reviewed international and Indian tests relating to inventive step, including the Obvious-to-Try Test, Problem-Solution Approach, Could-Would Approach, Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) Test, the Windsurfing Test and the Pozzoli Test. The judgment also emphasized that hindsight reconstruction of an invention through selective reading of prior art must be avoided.

The Court additionally referred to the Division Bench decision in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., which elaborated the structured approach for assessing inventive step and obviousness.

Reliance was also placed on Gogoro Inc. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, where a patent refusal was set aside because the Controller had failed to explain why the invention was obvious in light of prior art references.

After considering these authorities, Justice Singh concluded that the Controller had not followed the established principles governing inventive step analysis.

Final Decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court held that the refusal order dated 4 April 2024 could not be sustained. The Court found that the Patent Office had failed to properly analyse the appellant’s submissions, had relied upon hindsight reasoning, had adopted hypothetical assumptions and had not undertaken the legally required examination of inventive step.

Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration of the patent application. The Court directed that a fresh hearing be granted to the applicant and that the detailed response to the FER and written submissions be properly considered. The Patent Office was directed to take a fresh decision within four months. The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of patentability itself.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment reinforces that while examining inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, the Controller must identify the prior art, identify the invention claimed in the application and explain how a person skilled in the art would move from the prior art to the claimed invention. Mere assertions that the invention is obvious are insufficient.

The decision further establishes that patent refusals must be supported by detailed reasoning and cannot be based upon hindsight analysis, assumptions or hypothetical modifications of prior art references. Structural similarity alone does not establish obviousness. The Patent Office must identify a clear teaching, suggestion or motivation that would lead a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention.

The judgment also reiterates that reasoned orders and application of mind are essential requirements of natural justice in patent examination proceedings.

---

Case Details

Title: Biotyx Medical Shenzhen Co., Ltd. Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design

Date of Order: 19 May 2026

Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 47/2024

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:____ (Neutral citation not available in the uploaded copy)

Court: High Court of Delhi

Hon'ble Judge: Justice Jyoti Singh

---

Headnote

The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of a patent application relating to an absorbable stent and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court held that while rejecting a patent application for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, the Patent Office must undertake a detailed analysis of the prior art, the claimed invention and the manner in which a person skilled in the art would arrive at the invention. The Court emphasized that patent refusals cannot be based on hindsight reasoning, hypothetical assumptions or unexplained combinations of prior art documents. A reasoned and speaking order is an essential requirement of natural justice.

---

SEO Tags: Patent Law, Inventive Step, Section 2(1)(ja), Patents Act 1970, Absorbable Stent Patent, Biotyx Medical Shenzhen, Patent Refusal, Delhi High Court Patent Judgment, Obviousness Test, Prior Art Analysis, Patent Examination, Patent Prosecution, Patent Appeal, Section 15 Patents Act, Medical Device Patent, Cardiovascular Stent Patent, Agriboard International LLC, Avery Dennison Corporation, F Hoffmann La Roche v Cipla, Gogoro Inc Patent Case, Teaching Suggestion Motivation Test, Problem Solution Approach, Could Would Test, Windsurfing Test, Pozzoli Test, Patent Natural Justice, Speaking Order Requirement, Patent Controller Decision, Patent Litigation India, Intellectual Property Law, Delhi High Court IP Division, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Neurocentria Inc. Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Design

Suggested SEO Titles

Patent Priority Date Amendment Cannot Revive Time-Barred Patent Application: Delhi High Court in Neurocentria Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents

Delhi High Court Clarifies Law on Disclaimer of Priority Date and Patent Deadlines

Can a Patentee Amend Priority Date to Save a Withdrawn Patent Application? Analysis of Neurocentria Judgment

National Phase Entry and RFE Timelines Under Patents Act: Delhi High Court Reaffirms Mandatory Compliance

Section 57(5) Patents Act Explained: Delhi High Court Rejects Priority Date Amendment After Missed Deadlines

Patent Agent Negligence vs Mandatory Patent Timelines: Delhi High Court Decision in Neurocentria Inc.

Effect of Missing National Phase and RFE Deadlines in India: Comprehensive Analysis of Neurocentria Case

Delhi High Court on Patent Withdrawal, Priority Claims and Form-13 Amendments

---

Neurocentria Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs: Delhi High Court Reaffirms that Priority Date Amendment Cannot Revive a Patent Application Already Deemed Withdrawn

Introduction

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Neurocentria Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs is an important ruling on the interplay between patent priority claims, national phase entry deadlines, requests for examination, and the power to amend patent applications under the Patents Act, 1970. The judgment addresses a recurring issue in patent prosecution: whether an applicant who has missed mandatory statutory deadlines can subsequently amend or disclaim an earlier priority date in order to bring the application within the prescribed time limits.

Court examined the scope of Section 57(5) of the Patents Act, 1970 and considered whether a patent applicant could amend its priority claim fourteen years after filing the application. The Court ultimately held that such an amendment cannot be permitted where its sole purpose is to circumvent mandatory statutory timelines and revive an application that has already become liable to be treated as withdrawn.

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Neurocentria Inc., filed a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international application on 24 March 2008. The PCT application claimed three priority dates from United States provisional applications:

The earliest priority was US Application No. 60/896,458 dated 22 March 2007. The second priority was US Application No. 60/994,902 dated 20 September 2007. The third priority was US Application No. 61/066,592 dated 20 February 2008.

Thereafter, the appellant entered the national phase in several jurisdictions and filed Indian Patent Application No. 1015/DELNP/2010 on 15 February 2010. A Request for Examination (RFE) was filed on 16 September 2011.

When the First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 14 March 2018, the Patent Office raised an objection that the application had not complied with statutory timelines because the earliest priority date of 22 March 2007 had not been disclosed in Form-1 and the RFE had not been filed within forty-eight months from that earliest priority date.

The applicant responded that it had intentionally chosen to rely upon the second priority date and had effectively disclaimed the first priority date at the time of national phase entry. According to the applicant, if the second priority date of 20 September 2007 were treated as the operative priority date, both the national phase filing and the RFE would fall within time.

A hearing was initially fixed in 2019. Owing to alleged negligence of the patent agent, the hearing was missed and the application was refused. Subsequently, the Patent Office granted an extended hearing in 2024. The applicant then filed Form-13 on 28 June 2024 seeking amendment of the priority claim by disclaiming the earliest priority date.

The Deputy Controller rejected the amendment request and treated the application as withdrawn. This order was challenged before the Delhi High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act.

The Core Dispute

The central issue before the Court was whether the applicant could, after many years, invoke Section 57(5) of the Patents Act to disclaim its earliest priority date and substitute the second priority date as the operative priority date.

The applicant argued that the first priority date had effectively been abandoned from the beginning and that Form-13 merely sought to formally record what had always been intended. It further contended that Section 57(5) expressly permits amendment of priority claims and does not prescribe any limitation period. The applicant also emphasized that it should not be penalized for the negligence of its patent agent.

The Patent Office, on the other hand, argued that the earliest priority date governed both the thirty-one month deadline for entering the national phase under Rule 20(4)(i) and the forty-eight month deadline for filing the RFE under Rule 24B. Since both deadlines had already expired, the application stood withdrawn by operation of law. According to the Patent Office, a later amendment could not be used to defeat mandatory statutory provisions.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge

The Court noted that Rule 20(4)(i) requires entry into the Indian national phase within thirty-one months from the priority date referred to in Article 2(xi) of the PCT. Where multiple priorities are claimed, Article 2(xi) specifically treats the earliest priority date as the relevant date for calculating deadlines.

Applying these provisions, the Court held that the national phase application ought to have been filed by 22 October 2009, being thirty-one months from 22 March 2007. Since the application was actually filed on 15 February 2010, it was filed approximately four months late. Likewise, the RFE should have been filed on or before 22 March 2011, but was filed only on 16 September 2011.

The Court observed that the applicant admittedly omitted the earliest priority date from Form-1 and disclosed only the second and third priorities. Court found that this omission operated to the applicant’s advantage because it artificially extended both statutory deadlines. The Court noted that there was no contemporaneous request for disclaimer when the application was filed and that the first formal request seeking disclaimer appeared only in Form-13 filed in June 2024.

A significant part of the judgment is devoted to the mandatory nature of patent prosecution deadlines. The Court held that deadlines relating to national phase entry and filing of an RFE are non-extendable and are treated differently from procedural deadlines that may sometimes be relaxed in exceptional circumstances.

Discussion of Earlier Judgments

The Court extensively considered the decision in Nippon Steel Corporation v. Union of India. In that case, the Delhi High Court had held that although Section 57(5) permits amendment of a priority date, such amendment can only be sought while a patent application continues to exist in law. Once an application stands withdrawn under Section 11B(4), a later amendment cannot revive it. The Court quoted the observation that merely because no limitation period is prescribed for amendment of a priority date does not mean that such an application can be filed after the patent application has ceased to exist.

The Court also relied upon Diebold Self Service Systems v. Union of India, where a Division Bench had upheld the validity of Rule 22 and emphasized that national phase entry deadlines are mandatory. The Division Bench had ruled that failure to comply with the statutory period results in deemed withdrawal and that courts cannot create extensions not contemplated by legislation.

The applicant relied heavily upon decisions such as European Union Represented by the European Commission v. Union of India, Bry-Air Prokon Sagl v. Union of India and Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. However, Court distinguished these authorities on the ground that they concerned different categories of deadlines, particularly delays in responding to examination reports or exceptional writ jurisdiction cases. They did not authorize extension of national phase entry deadlines or RFE deadlines, which have consistently been regarded as mandatory.

The Court therefore rejected the argument that negligence of a patent agent could justify extension of these particular statutory timelines. Even if the applicant had acted in good faith, the statutory scheme did not permit revival through amendment.

The Court further held that allowing the amendment would effectively permit the applicant to achieve indirectly what it could not achieve directly. Since the proposed disclaimer was intended solely to overcome missed statutory deadlines, the amendment could not be permitted.

Final Decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. It held that the patent application had not been filed within thirty-one months from the earliest priority date and that the Request for Examination had not been filed within forty-eight months from that date. The Court concluded that the application stood withdrawn under the statutory scheme and that Form-13 could not be used fourteen years later to alter the priority date and revive the application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment settles several important principles of Indian patent law.

A patent applicant cannot disclaim or amend an earliest priority date under Section 57(5) merely to overcome missed statutory deadlines for national phase entry or filing a Request for Examination.

The thirty-one month deadline for entering the national phase under Rule 20(4)(i) and the forty-eight month deadline for filing an RFE under Section 11B read with Rule 24B are mandatory and non-extendable.

Where multiple priority claims exist in a PCT application, the earliest priority date governs computation of statutory timelines.

Even though Section 57(5) permits amendment of priority claims, such amendment can only be sought in respect of an application that continues to exist in law. Once an application is deemed withdrawn, amendment cannot revive it.

Negligence of a patent agent, however unfortunate, cannot be used to circumvent statutory provisions governing non-extendable patent deadlines.

Case Title: Neurocentria Inc. Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs

Date of Order: 18 May 2026

Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 5/2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4418

Court: High Court of Delhi

Hon'ble Judge: Justice Jyoti Singh

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Headnote

The Delhi High Court held that an applicant cannot amend or disclaim an earlier priority claim under Section 57(5) of the Patents Act, 1970 for the purpose of overcoming mandatory statutory deadlines relating to national phase entry and filing of a Request for Examination. The Court reaffirmed that the thirty-one month period under Rule 20(4)(i) and the forty-eight month period under Rule 24B are mandatory and non-extendable. Once a patent application stands withdrawn by operation of law, a subsequent amendment of the priority date cannot revive the application. The appeal challenging the order of the Deputy Controller was dismissed.

SEO Tags: Patent Law, Patents Act 1970, Neurocentria Inc, Priority Date Amendment, Section 57(5) Patents Act, National Phase Entry, PCT Application, Patent Cooperation Treaty, Request for Examination, RFE Deadline, Rule 20 Patent Rules, Rule 24B Patent Rules, Rule 22 Patent Rules, Form 13 Patent Amendment, Patent Withdrawal, Deemed Withdrawal of Patent Application, Delhi High Court Patent Cases, Justice Jyoti Singh, Nippon Steel Corporation v Union of India, Diebold Self Service Systems v Union of India, Patent Agent Negligence, Indian Patent Litigation, Patent Prosecution, Patent Priority Claims, Intellectual Property Law, Patent Appeal, Patent Deadline Compliance, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Fortune Marketing Private Limited Vs Gujarat Pesticides

Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright Registration of “ZOOOK” Label Due to Procedural Irregularities

In Fortune Marketing Private Limited Vs. Gujarat Pesticides & Ors., decided on 29 May 2026, bearing Case No. C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024, Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4850, the Delhi High Court, New Delhi, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh, allowed a petition seeking cancellation of copyright registration granted in respect of the artistic work titled “ZOOOK”.

The petitioner, proprietor of the well-known ZOOOK trademark and copyright registrations used since 2013, challenged the copyright registration obtained by Gujarat Pesticides for a packaging/label bearing the identical mark “ZOOOK”. The petitioner contended that the respondent had unsuccessfully attempted to secure trademark registrations and thereafter sought copyright protection for substantially the same label.

The Court observed that the Trade Marks Registry had earlier identified conflicting marks belonging to the petitioner but subsequently issued a Search Certificate incorrectly stating that no similar marks existed. The Court further held that the petitioner was a “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and should have been notified under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 before grant of the copyright registration.

Holding that the registration process suffered from procedural defects and that the Search Certificate was issued contrary to the Trade Marks Register, the Court cancelled Copyright Registration No. A-153061/2024 relating to the artistic work “ZOOOK”, set aside the Search Certificate dated 26 October 2023, and directed fresh consideration of the application after hearing both parties.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

====

Delhi High Court Revokes Copyright Registration of “ZOOOK” Label: Trademark Rights Cannot Be Circumvented Through Copyright Registration

Compliance with Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules and adherence to principles of procedural fairness are essential requirements when granting copyright registration

Introduction:

The judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court on 29 May 2026 in Fortune Marketing Private Limited v. Gujarat Pesticides & Ors. is an important decision at the intersection of trademark law and copyright law. The case highlights the safeguards built into the Copyright Act, 1957 to prevent parties from obtaining copyright registrations over artistic works that incorporate trademarks already belonging to others. The Court emphasized that copyright registration cannot be used as an indirect route to secure rights over a mark when trademark registration itself is disputed or opposed.

The decision is significant because it reinforces the legislative purpose behind Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and protects the integrity of both the Trade Marks Register and the Copyright Register. The Court also clarified the meaning of the expression “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act and recognized the rights of trademark proprietors to challenge copyright registrations that adversely affect their trademark interests.

Factual and Procedural Background:

The petitioner, Fortune Marketing Private Limited, is the proprietor of the well-known mark “ZOOOK” and its variants. The company has been using the mark since 2013 in relation to electronic products and has secured several trademark registrations as well as copyright registrations in its logo and artistic works. According to the petitioner, the mark “ZOOOK” is a coined and distinctive expression that has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation through extensive sales, advertising campaigns, celebrity endorsements, sponsorship of sporting events, and continuous commercial use.

The dispute began when Gujarat Pesticides, the first respondent, filed a trademark application in 2019 for a mark incorporating the word “ZOOOK” in Class 1. The petitioner opposed the application. Subsequently, the respondent withdrew the application. However, shortly thereafter, the respondent filed fresh trademark applications for the word mark “ZOOOK” and a label mark containing the same expression. These applications were also opposed by the petitioner and remained pending before the Trade Marks Registry.

While these trademark disputes were continuing, the respondent secured copyright registration on 25 April 2024 for an artistic work and packaging label titled “ZOOOK” under Registration No. A-153061/2024. The petitioner discovered this registration and approached the Delhi High Court under Section 50 of the Copyright Act seeking cancellation of the copyright registration.

The petitioner argued that the respondent had failed to obtain trademark registration and was now attempting to achieve the same result through copyright registration. It was also alleged that the copyright registration was granted on the basis of an incorrect Search Certificate issued by the Trade Marks Registry and that the petitioner was never notified despite having a direct interest in the subject matter.

Dispute Before the Court:

The principal dispute before the Court was whether the copyright registration granted in favour of Gujarat Pesticides for the artistic work “ZOOOK” was valid.

The petitioner contended that it was the prior adopter, user, and registered proprietor of the ZOOOK mark. It argued that the respondent's artistic work substantially incorporated the petitioner’s registered trademark and that the copyright registration had been obtained despite pending trademark disputes and conflicting marks already existing on the Trade Marks Register.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that copyright and trademark rights operate independently. According to the respondent, merely because the petitioner owned trademark rights in the word “ZOOOK” did not mean that the respondent could not obtain copyright registration for an original artistic work containing that word. The respondent further argued that the petitioner was not a “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act and therefore had no right to seek cancellation of the registration.

The government authorities, namely the Registrar of Copyrights and the Registrar of Trade Marks, defended the issuance of the copyright registration and maintained that the Search Certificate had been properly issued.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:

The Court placed considerable emphasis on the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.Under this provision, where an artistic work is capable of being used in relation to goods or services, the applicant must obtain a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks confirming that no identical or deceptively similar trademark has been registered or applied for by another person.

The Court explained that this requirement exists to prevent abuse of copyright registration and to ensure that individuals do not copy existing trademarks and then claim copyright protection over them.

In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied heavily upon the decision in Hugo Boss Trademark Management GmbH & Co. KG v. Sandeep Arora Trading as Arras The Boss and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7956. In that case, the Delhi High Court had observed that the purpose of Section 45 is to prevent unscrupulous parties from copying established trademarks and subsequently seeking protection through copyright registration. The Court noted that the legislature intentionally incorporated this safeguard because artistic works and label marks often overlap in commercial practice.

The Court also referred to Marico Ltd. v. Mrs. Jagjit Kaur, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8488, where the Delhi High Court recognized that although copyright law and trademark law are separate statutory regimes, conflicts may arise where artistic works are used as trademarks. The proviso to Section 45 was therefore enacted to address precisely such situations.

Applying these principles, the Court found serious procedural irregularities in the present matter. The evidence showed that when the respondent applied for the Search Certificate, the Examination-cum-Search Report dated 1 March 2023 had identified conflicting marks belonging to the petitioner. Despite this, a Search Certificate dated 26 October 2023 was subsequently issued stating that no similar marks existed.

The Court found this contradiction impossible to reconcile. According to the Court, once conflicting marks had already been identified, the subsequent issuance of a certificate certifying the absence of conflicting marks was clearly erroneous. This incorrect certificate became the foundation upon which the copyright registration was granted.

The Court observed that the registration process had effectively begun with an inaccurate premise and therefore the resulting copyright registration could not be sustained.

Another important issue concerned the meaning of “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act. The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the petitioner lacked standing. Since the petitioner was the registered proprietor and prior user of the ZOOOK mark and the impugned artistic work incorporated that very mark, the petitioner had a direct, substantial, and legitimate interest in the dispute. The Court therefore held that the petitioner clearly qualified as a person aggrieved.

The Court also found a violation of Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. This rule requires notice to be given to persons having an interest in the subject matter of the copyright application. Since the respondent was fully aware of the ongoing trademark disputes and oppositions involving the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been notified. Failure to provide such notice deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to contest the registration before it was granted.

Court observed that procedural fairness is an essential component of the registration process. When a party with a direct and obvious interest is denied participation, the resulting registration becomes vulnerable to challenge.

Final Decision of the Court:

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and revoked Copyright Registration No. A-153061/2024 relating to the artistic work and packaging label titled “ZOOOK”.

The Court also set aside the Search Certificate dated 26 October 2023 issued by the Trade Marks Registry.

The original copyright application filed by Gujarat Pesticides was revived for fresh consideration. The Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to reconsider the matter from the stage of the Examination-cum-Search Report dated 1 March 2023, issue a fresh Search Certificate after proper examination, and thereafter allow both parties an opportunity to file objections and make submissions before a final decision is taken. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within four months.

Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the ultimate merits of the respondent’s copyright claim and had confined itself to examining the procedural validity of the registration process.

Point of Law Settled:

The judgment establishes that copyright registration of an artistic work containing a trademark cannot be sustained if the mandatory safeguards under Section 45 of the Copyright Act are not properly followed.

The decision further clarifies that a registered trademark proprietor whose mark is incorporated into an impugned artistic work is a “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act and is entitled to seek cancellation of the copyright registration.

The judgment also reinforces that an incorrect Search Certificate issued contrary to the Trade Marks Register can vitiate the entire copyright registration process. Compliance with Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules and adherence to principles of procedural fairness are essential requirements when granting copyright registration for artistic works connected with commercial goods and services.

Case Title: Fortune Marketing Private Limited Vs Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026

Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4850

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Headnote

The Delhi High Court held that copyright registration of an artistic work incorporating a registered trademark cannot be sustained where the mandatory requirements of Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 are violated. The Court ruled that a trademark proprietor is a “person aggrieved” under Section 50 and can seek cancellation of a copyright registration affecting its trademark rights. An incorrect Search Certificate issued contrary to the Trade Marks Register and failure to notify interested parties under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 render the copyright registration vulnerable to cancellation.

SC-Jagatjit Industries Limited Vs. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board

# BLENDERS PRIDE TRADEMARK DISPUTE: WHEN A REGISTRY ERROR MEETS OPPOSITION RIGHTS

## Introduction

The case of Jagatjit Industries Limited versus The Intellectual Property Appellate Board decided by the Supreme Court of India on 20th January 2016 touches upon some of the most fundamental questions in trademark law in India. What happens when the Trade Marks Registry issues a registration certificate by mistake, in clear violation of the statutory procedure governing opposition? Can a Registrar exercise suo motu power to correct such an error even when infringement proceedings are pending in a civil court? Does the bar created by Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 extend to the Registrar's independent power to maintain the purity of the trademark register? These questions, which have significant practical consequences for trademark proprietors and opponents alike, were squarely addressed by the Supreme Court in this appeal filed by Jagatjit Industries Limited.

## Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute revolves around the trademark "BLENDERS PRIDE," a well-known name in the Indian whisky market. Respondent No. 4, Austin Nichols and Company Incorporated, a corporation registered under the laws of the United States of America and an ultimate subsidiary of Pernod Ricard S.A., claimed to have coined and adopted the trademark BLENDERS PRIDE through its licensee M/s. Seagram Company Limited as far back as 1973. Austin Nichols claimed that on account of extensive sales and marketing worldwide, the trademark had acquired tremendous reputation, and that it had obtained registration in more than 50 countries. In India, it had been selling BLENDERS PRIDE whisky through its licensee Seagram India Private Limited since 1995, and had applied for registration of the trademark under two applications in Class 33, which were pending.

Jagatjit Industries Limited, the appellant, also applied for registration of the identical trademark BLENDERS PRIDE. This application was advertised in the Trademarks Journal Mega-I, which was published on 7th October 2003. Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, any person wishing to oppose a trademark application must file a notice of opposition within three months from the date of advertisement, with a provision for a further extension of up to one month in aggregate. Austin Nichols, within the statutory three-month period, filed Form TM-44 on 6th January 2004 seeking an extension of one month to file its notice of opposition, citing the need to seek legal advice. On 19th January 2004, Austin Nichols filed its notice of opposition before the Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi, which was duly numbered as DEL-160325.

On 16th February 2004, the Trade Marks Registry issued a notice to Jagatjit Industries Limited under Section 21(2) of the Act, calling upon it to file a counter-statement to the notice of opposition within two months, with a warning that failure to do so would result in the trademark application being deemed abandoned. This letter, as the Court noted, unambiguously reflected that the notice of opposition had been taken on record.

However, despite opposition proceedings being actively pending, Austin Nichols discovered on 20th January 2005 that a trademark registration certificate bearing No. 618414 had already been issued to Jagatjit Industries Limited on 13th January 2004 — that is, before the extended opposition period had even expired and while the opposition proceedings were still very much alive.

Austin Nichols immediately informed the Trade Marks Registry about the pending opposition proceedings. Receiving no response, it filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court being Writ Petition Nos. 2712 and 2713 of 2005. On 16th February 2005, the Registrar issued a show cause notice to Jagatjit Industries under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, stating that the registration certificate had been issued wrongly and proposing to rectify the register by removing the mark. Jagatjit was also directed to return the wrongly issued certificate and not to use it in any proceedings.

Jagatjit challenged this show cause notice by filing Writ Petition Nos. 10080-81 of 2005 and obtained an interim stay. Meanwhile, on 14th January 2005, Jagatjit had already filed a suit for infringement of its trademark in the District Court of Jalandhar against Seagram Distilleries Private Limited, the licensee of Austin Nichols. In the written statement filed in that suit, Seagram took up the plea that Jagatjit's registration was under challenge and hence the suit ought to be stayed.

On 14th November 2005, the Registrar recalled the show cause notice, holding that in view of Section 125 of the Act, jurisdiction had shifted to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board since infringement proceedings were pending in a civil court. In an appeal before the Appellate Board, the Board reversed the Registrar's order on 6th October 2006, holding that the registration of the trademark on 13th January 2004 was contrary to Section 23 of the Act and directing the Registrar to proceed with the opposition proceedings.

Jagatjit challenged the Appellate Board's order before the Delhi High Court. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 9th May 2008, set aside the Appellate Board's order and upheld the Registrar's earlier decision to recall the show cause notice, holding that Section 125 applied and that the Whirlpool judgment of the Supreme Court supported this view. In appeal, however, the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's decision, holding that the registration was issued in violation of Section 23(1) of the Act, that Section 125 did not bar the Registrar's suo motu powers under Section 57(4), and that it was the Registrar's duty to maintain the purity of the register. The Division Bench directed a de novo hearing of the case. It was against this Division Bench judgment that Jagatjit filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

## The Dispute

The central legal questions before the Supreme Court can be understood in three parts. First, was the extension of time for filing the opposition validly granted by the Registrar, and was the registration certificate issued on 13th January 2004 therefore illegal? Second, was the show cause notice issued from Bombay by the Registrar valid, given that the trademark proceedings had been conducted in Delhi? Third, and most importantly, does Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 bar the Registrar from exercising suo motu power under Section 57(4) to rectify the register once an infringement suit is pending in a civil court where the defendant has challenged the validity of the plaintiff's trademark registration?

## Reasoning and Analysis of the Judges

Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, who authored the judgment, examined these questions with care and clarity, drawing upon the statutory scheme of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and relevant precedents.

On the question of whether extension of time was validly granted, the Court noted that Respondent No. 4 had filed Form TM-44 seeking extension of one month within the three-month period, and that the notice of opposition filed on 19th January 2004 was within the extended period. Most critically, the Registrar's letter dated 16th February 2004 had expressly taken the notice of opposition on record and called upon Jagatjit to file a counter-statement. The Court held that this letter itself was sufficient evidence that the Registrar had extended the time for filing opposition. A separate written order was not necessary, as the extension of time by the Registrar under the Act is a ministerial act requiring no formal hearing.

The Court referred to Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which empowers the Registrar to extend time if satisfied that there is sufficient cause, and expressly provides that no hearing is required and no appeal lies from such an order. While technically Section 131 would not apply to the time for filing opposition since that is expressly provided in the Act itself, the Court used it as a pointer to show that such extensions need not be accompanied by formal written orders. The Court also relied upon the principle settled in Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480, where the Supreme Court had held that procedural provisions must be construed in a manner that advances justice rather than defeats it, and that parties must not be denied the opportunity to participate in the justice dispensation process unless compelled by express and specific statutory language. Since the Registrar had clearly acted upon the application for extension by taking the notice of opposition on record, the registration certificate issued on 13th January 2004 — before the extended opposition period had even lapsed — was held to be in clear violation of Section 23(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which mandates that registration can only be granted after the statutory period for filing opposition has expired without any opposition being received, or after an opposition has been decided in favour of the applicant.

The Court also rejected the argument that the show cause notice issued from Bombay was without jurisdiction. This argument had been raised by Jagatjit on the ground that the trademark application and all subsequent proceedings had taken place in Delhi, and therefore the Delhi office ought to have issued the show cause notice. The Court answered this by examining Section 3 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides that the Central Government appoints a person to be the Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, who is the Registrar of Trade Marks for purposes of the Act. Other officers in various parts of the country act under the superintendence and directions of this Registrar, whose office is in Bombay. Since there is only one Registrar under the Act and the suo motu power under Section 57(4) can only be exercised by the Registrar himself, the show cause notice issued from Bombay was perfectly valid.

The most substantive and legally significant part of the judgment deals with the interpretation of Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and its relationship with Section 57(4). Section 125(1) provides, in essence, that where in a suit for infringement of a registered trademark the defendant pleads that the registration of the plaintiff's trademark is invalid, the issue of validity shall be determined only on an application for rectification of the register, and such application shall be made to the Appellate Board and not to the Registrar, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 47 or Section 57.

Justice Nariman held that Section 125 does not apply to the facts of this case for two independent reasons. The first is factual. Section 125 speaks of proceedings arising in the context of a suit for infringement where the defendant questions the validity of the plaintiff's trademark registration. In the present case, the suit for infringement was filed by Jagatjit in the District Court of Jalandhar against Seagram Distilleries Private Limited. However, Austin Nichols — Respondent No. 4 before the Supreme Court — was not a defendant in that suit. The Court rejected the argument advanced by Jagatjit's counsel, Smt. Prathiba Singh, that since Seagram was merely a licensee of Austin Nichols and the authorized signatory of both companies was the same person, Austin Nichols should be treated as if it were a defendant. The Court found this argument unconvincing because Jagatjit's own plaint in the infringement suit did not even allege that Seagram was the licensee of Austin Nichols. In fact, Jagatjit's plaint stated that the defendant companies had not even applied for registration of the trademark BLENDERS PRIDE in their own names. Austin Nichols not being a defendant in the infringement suit, Section 125(1) could not be invoked.

The second reason is structural and of broader application. Even if Austin Nichols had been a defendant in the infringement suit, the Court held that Section 125(1) does not bar the Registrar's suo motu power under Section 57(4) because Section 125(1) applies only to applications for rectification of the register filed by parties, and not to the Registrar's independent exercise of its statutory duty to maintain the purity of the trademark register.

In reaching this conclusion, Justice Nariman drew upon a comparison with the predecessor legislation, the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Section 107(1) of the 1958 Act used the expression "section 46, section 56 and sub-section (4) of section 47," deliberately specifying only a particular sub-section of Section 47 rather than the whole section. This was because other sub-sections of Section 47 did not concern applications for rectification but explained what defensive trademarks were. In the 1999 Act, the width of the expression "Section 57" in Section 125(1) is restricted by the words "and an application for rectification of the register." Such applications for rectification are referable only to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 57, both of which deal with applications by parties. Section 57(4), which deals with the Registrar's suo motu power, does not contemplate any application by any party at all. Therefore, on a literal construction of Section 125(1), Section 57(4) falls outside its reach.

The Court also relied heavily upon the earlier Supreme Court decision in Hardie Trading Ltd. and Anr. v. Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd. (2003) 11 SCC 92, which had firmly established that the Registrar has an independent duty to maintain the purity of the register and that the suo motu power under Section 57(4) serves a public interest function. The Court quoted Hardie's case to the effect that proceedings under Section 56 of the 1958 Act (equivalent to Section 57 of the 1999 Act) are commenced for the purity of the register, which it is in the public interest to maintain. Illustrating the importance of this interpretation, the Court pointed out a practical scenario: if a defendant in an infringement suit raises the plea of invalidity of the plaintiff's trademark registration and then reaches a compromise with the plaintiff and chooses not to file a rectification petition before the Appellate Board, the Registrar's power to clean up the register must remain intact regardless. Accepting the contrary interpretation would leave a wrongly registered trademark permanently on the register simply because private litigation ended without a rectification petition being filed.

The Court then turned to the Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 judgment, which had been strongly relied upon by Jagatjit's counsel. The Court carefully distinguished that case on its facts. In Whirlpool, the rectification notice had been issued suo motu by the Registrar at the request of one of the parties to a suit for passing off — and critically, the court noted that an amendment application to add the relief of infringement had already been filed and was pending, so the suit was effectively on the verge of becoming an infringement suit within the meaning of Section 107(1) of the 1958 Act. The Court observed that no argument had been made in Whirlpool about the independence of Section 57(4) from Section 107(1), and the decision had turned entirely on the peculiar facts of that case. Further, in Whirlpool, one of the parties to the suit had applied for rectification, which distinguished it from the present case where Austin Nichols was not a party to the infringement suit. For these reasons, the Whirlpool judgment was held to have no application to the facts before the Court.

## Final Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Jagatjit Industries Limited and upheld the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court. The Court affirmed that the registration certificate bearing No. 618414 issued to Jagatjit on 13th January 2004 was issued in violation of Section 23(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as it was granted while the opposition period had not yet expired. The Court confirmed that Section 125(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 did not apply to the facts of the case because Austin Nichols was not a defendant in the infringement suit filed by Jagatjit. The Court further confirmed that even if Section 125(1) had otherwise been applicable, the suo motu power of the Registrar under Section 57(4) would not have been affected, as Section 125(1) operates only upon applications for rectification filed by parties and not upon the Registrar's independent statutory duty to maintain the register. No costs were awarded.

## Point of Law Settled

The Supreme Court settled that the Registrar of Trade Marks can validly grant an extension of time for filing a notice of opposition without passing a separate written order, and that such extension can be inferred from the Registrar's conduct in taking the opposition on record. Any registration certificate issued before the expiry of the extended opposition period is invalid and in contravention of Section 23(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Equally significantly, the Court settled that Section 125(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars proceedings before the Registrar and requires rectification applications to be made to the Appellate Board in the context of an infringement suit where the defendant challenges the validity of a trademark, applies only to applications for rectification filed by parties under Section 57(1) and (2). It does not bar or restrict the independent suo motu power of the Registrar under Section 57(4) to correct errors in the register and maintain its purity, irrespective of pending infringement proceedings in a civil court.

---

**Case Details**

Title: Jagatjit Industries Limited Vs. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board and Ors.

Date of Order: 20th January 2016

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 430 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14444 of 2009)

Neutral Citation: MANU/SC/0056/2016

Name of Court: Supreme Court of India

Hon'ble Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

---

*Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.*

*Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi*

---

**Suggested SEO Titles for Legal Journal**

Blenders Pride Trademark: Supreme Court on Registrar's Suo Motu Power and Section 125 of Trade Marks Act 1999

When Registry Issues Certificate During Opposition Period: Supreme Court Settles the Law on Section 23 Trade Marks Act

Section 125 vs Section 57(4) Trade Marks Act: Does Infringement Suit Bar Registrar's Suo Motu Rectification Power?

Trademark Registration Issued in Violation of Opposition Period: Supreme Court Upholds Rectification of Register

Purity of Trademark Register vs Infringement Suit Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 125 Trade Marks Act 1999

---

**SEO Tags**

Jagatjit Industries vs IPAB, Blenders Pride Trademark Case, Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 23 Trade Marks Act, Section 57 Trade Marks Act, Section 125 Trade Marks Act, Suo Motu Power Registrar Trademarks, Trademark Opposition Procedure India, Trademark Registration Validity India, Intellectual Property Appellate Board, IPAB Supreme Court, Trademark Rectification India, Purity of Trademark Register, Section 21 Trade Marks Act Opposition, Trademark Infringement Suit Stay, Whirlpool Trademark Case Distinguished, Hardie Trading Addisons Paint, Trademark Registry Error India, Trademark Opposition Extension of Time, Supreme Court Trademark Judgment 2016, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

---

**Headnote**

The Supreme Court of India held that a trademark registration certificate issued by the Trade Marks Registry during a pending opposition period, in violation of Section 23(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is invalid and liable to be removed from the register. The Registrar's acceptance of a notice of opposition and issuance of a notice calling for a counter-statement constitutes sufficient evidence of implied extension of time under Section 21(1), and no separate written order granting such extension is required. Further, the Court clarified that the bar under Section 125(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 — which requires rectification applications to be made to the Appellate Board rather than the Registrar in cases where an infringement suit is pending and the defendant challenges the validity of the plaintiff's trademark — operates only upon applications for rectification filed by parties under Section 57(1) and (2), and does not curtail or extinguish the Registrar's independent suo motu power under Section 57(4) to correct errors and maintain the purity of the trademark register. The Whirlpool judgment distinguished on facts. Appeal dismissed.

SC-Heinz Italia and Another Vs. Dabur India Ltd.

Goodwill ,consumer confusion and Passing off :Heinz Italia and Another Vs. Dabur India Ltd. by Supreme Court

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Heinz Italia & Another v. Dabur India Ltd. is an important judgment in Indian trademark and trade dress law concerning deceptive similarity, passing off, infringement of intellectual property rights, and the principles governing grant of interim injunctions. The case arose from a dispute between two well-known manufacturers of glucose-based energy drinks and involved allegations that one party had adopted packaging and presentation deceptively similar to that of a competing product already established in the market.

The judgment is particularly significant because it reinforces the principle that the overall appearance, get-up, colour combination, and visual presentation of a product can be as valuable as the trademark itself. In modern markets, consumers often identify products not merely by their names but also by their packaging and visual identity. The ruling therefore serves as an important precedent for businesses seeking to protect brand goodwill and trade dress from imitation.

The case also clarifies the approach courts should adopt while considering applications for interim injunctions in intellectual property disputes. It demonstrates that where a strong prima facie case of dishonest imitation is established, courts must intervene to prevent confusion among consumers and safeguard commercial reputation. The judgment remains relevant for trademark owners, brand managers, legal practitioners, advertisers, manufacturers, and businesses involved in consumer goods markets.

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants, Heinz Italia and its associated entity, were proprietors of the well-known trademark “Glucon-D”, a glucose-based energy drink that had enjoyed a substantial reputation in India for several decades. The mark was originally adopted and used by Glaxo Laboratories in 1940  and was subsequently registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in 1975. The trademark, together with the associated goodwill and rights in the artistic packaging and label, was assigned to the appellants in 1994.

Over the years, “Glucon-D” became one of the leading products in the glucose powder segment. Apart from the trademark itself, the product was marketed through a distinctive packaging style incorporating a particular colour scheme and visual presentation which had become associated with the appellants in the minds of consumers.

In July 2002, the appellants discovered that Dabur India Ltd. had launched a competing glucose product under the mark “Glucose-D.” The appellants alleged that the respondent had not only adopted a deceptively similar mark but had also copied the overall trade dress, packaging style, colour combination, and visual presentation of the “Glucon-D” product.

Claiming infringement of trademark rights, copyright in the artistic work of the packaging, and passing off, the appellants instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction against Dabur. Along with the suit, they filed an application seeking ad interim injunction restraining Dabur from using the impugned mark and packaging pending disposal of the suit.

The trial court declined to grant interim relief. The appellants challenged the decision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court affirmed the order of the trial court and refused to interfere. Faced with concurrent findings against them, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

The matter thus reached the Supreme Court for determination of whether interim protection ought to be granted in favour of the proprietor of the “Glucon-D” brand.

Dispute Before the Court

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants had established a sufficient prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction against Dabur’s use of the impugned packaging and trade dress.

The appellants argued that they were the prior users and registered proprietors of the trademark “Glucon-D” and had acquired enormous goodwill through continuous use extending back to 1940. They contended that the respondent’s adoption of “Glucose-D” together with substantially similar packaging was intended to capitalize upon the reputation of the appellants’ product and mislead consumers into believing that the two products were connected.

The appellants further contended that prior use constitutes one of the most important considerations in infringement and passing-off actions. They relied upon the long-standing reputation of “Glucon-D” and argued that even if portions of the mark were descriptive, protection was nevertheless available where the overall presentation had acquired distinctiveness in the market.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that both the trial court and the High Court had refused interim relief and that the Supreme Court should not interfere with concurrent discretionary orders. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, which emphasizes judicial restraint while reviewing interlocutory orders.

Dabur also contended that “glucose” was a generic and descriptive expression incapable of exclusive appropriation. It was argued that there was no deceptive similarity between the rival products and that the packaging adopted by the respondent was sufficiently distinct. The respondent further pointed out that the mark “Glucose-D” had allegedly been in use since 1989 and that the appellants had approached the court after considerable delay.

The Supreme Court was therefore required to determine whether the appellants had established a prima facie case of deceptive similarity and whether interim injunctive relief was warranted notwithstanding the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Supreme Court commenced its analysis by examining the principles governing appellate interference with orders relating to temporary injunctions. The respondent had heavily relied upon Wander Ltd. and Another v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, where the Court had emphasized that appellate courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with discretionary orders unless the discretion had been exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

The Court observed, however, that the facts of the present case were materially different. In Wander, the party resisting injunction had established prior user rights. In contrast, the evidence in the present matter clearly demonstrated that “Glucon-D” had been used by Glaxo since 1940 and thereafter by the appellants long before the respondent adopted the competing presentation. The principle in Wander therefore did not prevent interference where the lower courts had failed to properly appreciate the evidence relating to prior use and deceptive similarity.

A major aspect of the Court’s reasoning related to the concept of deceptive similarity. The Court observed that both products were glucose-based beverages and that the marks “Glucon-D” and “Glucose-D” exhibited a significant degree of phonetic resemblance. While the Court did not finally adjudicate upon trademark infringement at the interim stage, it acknowledged the striking similarity between the rival expressions.

More importantly, the Court concentrated on the visual appearance of the rival products. It reiterated the settled principle that in assessing deceptive similarity, courts must consider the overall impression conveyed to an ordinary purchaser rather than undertake a meticulous side-by-side comparison.

The Court found that the colour schemes adopted by the parties were remarkably similar. Both products featured a comparable visual arrangement and prominently displayed images of a happy family. The respondent attempted to distinguish the packaging by arguing that one package depicted a family of four members while the other displayed a family of three members. The Court rejected this argument, observing that consumers do not engage in such minute comparisons while purchasing everyday products. What matters is the overall commercial impression created by the packaging.

The Court concluded that the packaging of “Glucose-D” was sufficiently similar to that of “Glucon-D” and was capable of causing confusion among purchasers. The similarities were not confined to isolated features but extended to the overall trade dress and presentation of the product.

The Court also addressed the respondent’s argument regarding delay. It observed that where dishonest adoption or passing off is prima facie established, mere delay in approaching the court cannot by itself defeat the claim for injunctive relief. A trader cannot acquire legitimacy merely by continuing an allegedly deceptive practice for a period of time. The protection of goodwill and prevention of consumer confusion remain paramount considerations.

The Court further emphasized that where there is prima facie evidence suggesting an intention to pass off goods as those of another trader, an injunction should ordinarily follow. The law of passing off seeks not only to protect the proprietary rights of traders but also to safeguard consumers from deception and confusion.

Accordingly, the Court found that the appellants had established a strong prima facie case based upon prior user, reputation, deceptive similarity of packaging, and likelihood of confusion among consumers. The balance of convenience also favoured protection of the established market reputation enjoyed by the appellants.

Final Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the trial court as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court refusing interim relief.

The Court held that the appellants had made out a prima facie case warranting protection of their trade dress and packaging. Consequently, interim injunctive relief was granted against the respondent in relation to the impugned packaging and visual presentation.

At the same time, the Court did not restrain the respondent from using the expression “Glucose-D” pending the proceedings. The injunction granted by the Court was confined to the deceptively similar packaging, get-up, colour scheme, and overall trade dress adopted by the respondent.

The appeal was therefore allowed and the appellants succeeded in obtaining protection against the use of the impugned packaging.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment reinforces the principle that in trademark and passing-off actions, courts must evaluate the overall commercial impression created by a product rather than isolate individual differences in packaging or presentation.

The decision also clarifies that trade dress, colour combinations, visual layout, and packaging can acquire independent goodwill and legal protection. Even where a dispute concerning the word mark itself remains arguable, courts may grant injunctive relief against deceptively similar packaging capable of misleading consumers.

The ruling further establishes that delay alone is not a sufficient defence where prima facie evidence of dishonest adoption or passing off exists. Protection of goodwill and prevention of consumer confusion remain dominant considerations while deciding applications for interim injunctions.

The judgment continues to be a leading authority on deceptive packaging, trade dress protection, passing off, and interim injunctions in intellectual property litigation.

Case Details:

Title of the Case: Heinz Italia & Another Vs. Dabur India Ltd.

Date of Judgment/Order: 18 May 2007

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2756 of 2007

Citation: (2007) 6 SCC 1

Name of Court: Supreme Court of India

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice B.P.Singh and H.S.Bedi JJ

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Heinz Italia v. Dabur India: Supreme Court on Trade Dress Infringement and Passing Off

2. Glucon-D vs Glucose-D: Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Explained

3. Supreme Court Protects Product Packaging in Heinz Italia v. Dabur

4. Trade Dress Protection in India: Analysis of Heinz Italia Case

5. Deceptive Similarity and Packaging Infringement Under Indian Trademark Law

6. Heinz Italia v. Dabur India: Prior User Rights and Interim Injunctions

7. Supreme Court on Confusing Packaging and Consumer Deception

8. Passing Off and Product Get-Up: Lessons from the Glucon-D Case

9. Trademark and Packaging Disputes in India: Heinz Italia Judgment Analysis

10. Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Similar Packaging and Brand Identity

11. Trade Dress Infringement and Consumer Confusion: Heinz Italia Case Study

12. Interim Injunctions in Trademark Litigation: Understanding Heinz Italia v. Dabur

Suggested SEO Tags:

Heinz Italia Case, Dabur India Case, Glucon D Case, Glucose D Case, Trade Dress Infringement, Passing Off Action, Trademark Infringement India, Product Packaging Dispute, Deceptive Similarity, Intellectual Property Law India, Trade Dress Protection, Brand Protection India, Supreme Court Trademark Case, Consumer Confusion, Packaging Infringement, Trademark Litigation India, Prior User Rights, Interim Injunction Trademark, Copyright in Packaging, Product Get Up, Colour Combination Trademark, Trade Dress Jurisprudence, Passing Off Law India, Trademark Case Analysis, Glucon D Trademark, Brand Identity Protection, IP Litigation India, Supreme Court IP Judgment, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote of the Judgment:

Heinz Italia & Another v. Dabur India Ltd., Supreme Court of India. The dispute concerned the appellants’ well-known glucose drink sold under the trademark “Glucon-D” and the respondent’s competing product marketed as “Glucose-D”. The appellants alleged deceptive similarity in packaging, colour scheme, and overall trade dress. The trial court and the High Court refused interim injunction. The Supreme Court reversed those orders and held that the overall packaging of the respondent’s product was deceptively similar and capable of confusing consumers. Emphasizing prior user rights, trade dress protection, and the principle that delay alone cannot defeat a claim based on dishonest imitation, the Court granted interim injunction against the impugned packaging while permitting continued use of the expression “Glucose-D”.

Infographic Thumbnail Prompt:

Create a powerful YouTube legal infographic thumbnail in 14:9 ratio, ultra-realistic 8K quality. Show two competing glucose energy drink packs prominently labelled “GLUCON-D” and “GLUCOSE-D” facing each other with a bold red “VS” in the center. Display nearly identical orange packaging, family illustrations, and product designs to highlight consumer confusion. In the background place the Supreme Court of India with dramatic courtroom lighting, a judge’s gavel, trademark symbol ™, copyright symbol ©, and legal scales of justice. Include attention-grabbing headline text: “GLUCON-D vs GLUCOSE-D”, “PACKAGING COPY?” and “Goodwill ,consumer confusion and Passing off "”. Use professional legal-news graphics, high contrast colours, dynamic composition, and modern YouTube legal channel aesthetics emphasizing trademark infringement, trade dress protection, and passing off law. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner  which should cover 20 % of entire image area.

SC-Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Coca Cola Co. and Others

Introduction

The decision of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. is one of the most important Indian judgments on interim injunctions, negative covenants in commercial contracts, franchise arrangements, and the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The case arose out of a fierce commercial rivalry between Coca Cola and Pepsi in the Indian soft-drink market and required the Court to determine whether a contractual restriction preventing a franchisee from dealing with competing products could be enforced through an interim injunction during the pendency of a suit.

The judgment assumes continuing relevance for businesses operating through franchise, licensing, distribution, bottling, dealership, and technology-sharing arrangements. It provides authoritative guidance on the circumstances in which courts may grant interlocutory injunctions, the enforceability of negative stipulations in commercial contracts, and the role of equitable considerations while exercising discretionary powers. The ruling remains a leading precedent frequently cited in commercial litigation involving restrictive covenants and contractual obligations.

Factual and Procedural Background

Coca Cola Company entered into agreements with Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. (GBC) under which GBC was granted the right to manufacture, bottle, sell, and distribute beverages bearing Coca Cola trademarks and trade names. The relationship was based on a franchise and bottling arrangement through which Coca Cola supplied proprietary formulations, concentrates, and business know-how, while GBC undertook manufacturing and distribution activities in specified territories.

The agreements contained a negative covenant restraining GBC from manufacturing, bottling, selling, dealing in, or otherwise being concerned with beverages of competing brands during the subsistence of the agreement. The contractual framework also contemplated that any transfer of control or ownership affecting GBC required compliance with contractual conditions and the consent of Coca Cola.

Subsequently, control of GBC came into the hands of interests associated with Pepsi, a major competitor of Coca Cola in the soft-drink industry. The transfer of shares was effected without obtaining Coca Cola’s consent in the manner contemplated under the agreement. Instead of resolving the dispute through contractual mechanisms, GBC issued a notice seeking termination of the arrangement.

Apprehending that its proprietary business interests, market share, goodwill, and contractual rights would be adversely affected, Coca Cola instituted proceedings before the Bombay High Court. Coca Cola sought interim protection to prevent GBC and those controlling it from using the bottling facilities for manufacturing or marketing competing beverages.

The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the use of GBC’s plants for manufacturing, bottling, selling, or distributing beverages of competing brands. Aggrieved by the order, GBC and other appellants approached the Supreme Court through civil appeals challenging the grant and continuation of the injunction.

Dispute Before the Court

The principal controversy before the Supreme Court concerned whether the negative covenant contained in the franchise and bottling agreement could be enforced through an interim injunction during the pendency of the suit.

The appellants argued that the injunction effectively prevented the operation of the bottling facilities and would result in substantial commercial losses, unemployment, and hardship. They contended that the restriction amounted to an unreasonable restraint and that the balance of convenience required the injunction to be vacated.

Coca Cola, on the other hand, argued that the contractual restriction was voluntarily accepted by GBC and was necessary to protect proprietary rights, confidential business information, trademarks, goodwill, and market position. It was further contended that the transfer of control to Pepsi without contractual compliance constituted a breach of the agreement and that allowing the facilities to be used for competing products would cause irreparable harm incapable of adequate monetary compensation.

The Court was therefore required to determine whether the contractual restriction was legally enforceable, whether interim relief was justified, and how the principles governing interlocutory injunctions should be applied in a commercial dispute involving competing multinational corporations.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the principles governing interlocutory injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court reiterated that grant of an interim injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy. While exercising such discretion, courts ordinarily examine whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience lies in its favour, and whether refusal of relief would result in irreparable injury.

The Court relied upon the principles articulated in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, where the Supreme Court explained the limited scope of appellate interference with discretionary orders relating to temporary injunctions. The Court also referred to the celebrated English decision in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., (1975) AC 396 , which discusses the approach to interlocutory relief and balancing competing risks pending trial.

A significant issue concerned the enforceability of the negative covenant contained in the bottling agreement. The Court examined Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which permits enforcement of a negative agreement even where the affirmative part of the contract cannot be specifically enforced, provided the circumstances justify such relief. The Court observed that the provision recognizes the enforceability of negative stipulations and enables courts to grant injunctions restraining conduct contrary to contractual obligations.

The Court also analysed Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which renders agreements in restraint of trade void. The appellants attempted to contend that the contractual restriction amounted to an impermissible restraint on trade. Rejecting this argument, the Court distinguished between restrictions operating during the subsistence of a contract and restrictions operating after termination of contractual relations.

The Court noted that Indian law does not prohibit every contractual restriction. A covenant intended to facilitate and promote a commercial relationship during the life of a contract cannot automatically be characterized as a restraint of trade. The restriction in the present case merely prevented GBC from dealing with competing beverages while enjoying the benefits of the Coca Cola franchise arrangement. Since the covenant operated only during the subsistence of the agreement and not thereafter, it was held not to offend Section 27.

In this context, the Court extensively relied upon Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., : (1967) 2 SCR 378, where a negative covenant operative during the term of employment was upheld. The Court emphasized that restraints operative during the currency of a contractual relationship stand on a different footing from post-termination restraints.

The Court also referred to Ehrman v. Bartholomew, (1927) W.N. 233, and other authorities discussing the circumstances in which negative covenants may be enforced through injunctions. It further considered decisions such as V.B. Rangaraj v. V.B. Gopalakrishnan, (1992) 1 SCC 160, Lalbhai Dalpatbhai & Co. v. Chittaranjan Chandulal Pandya, AIR 1966 Guj 189, and Modern Food Industries India Ltd. v. Shri Krishna Bottlers (P) Ltd., AIR 1984 Del 119 while examining contractual obligations and commercial restraints.

Another important aspect of the judgment concerns equitable conduct. The Court observed that a party seeking equitable relief must itself act fairly. The material before the Court indicated that control of GBC had been transferred without complying with contractual obligations and without obtaining Coca Cola’s consent. The Court found that GBC had, prima facie, acted inconsistently with the agreement. Consequently, it could not successfully invoke equitable considerations to seek vacation of the injunction.

The Court further held that the balance of convenience favoured Coca Cola. If Pepsi-controlled interests were permitted to use the bottling facilities for competing products, Coca Cola would suffer loss of market share, goodwill, and competitive advantage. Such losses would be difficult to quantify and compensate through damages. In contrast, any losses suffered by GBC could be measured and compensated monetarily if the suit ultimately failed.

The Court therefore concluded that Coca Cola had established a strong prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, and that irreparable injury would result if interim protection were denied. The contractual restriction was found to be a legitimate commercial covenant rather than an unlawful restraint of trade.

Final Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the interim injunction granted by the Bombay High Court and dismissed the challenge mounted by Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and the other appellants.

The Court held that Coca Cola had successfully established a prima facie right to protection of the negative covenant contained in the bottling agreement. The balance of convenience favoured continuation of the injunction, and the potential injury to Coca Cola’s goodwill, market position, and commercial interests could not be adequately compensated by damages.

Consequently, the interim injunction restraining the use of GBC’s facilities for manufacturing, bottling, selling, or distributing competing beverages during the relevant period was allowed to continue, and the appeals were dismissed.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment authoritatively establishes that a negative covenant operating during the subsistence of a commercial contract is generally enforceable and does not necessarily amount to a restraint of trade prohibited by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The decision further clarifies that courts may grant interim injunctions to enforce such negative stipulations under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 where the plaintiff demonstrates a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury.

The ruling also reinforces the principle that injunctions are equitable remedies and that the conduct of the parties including those seeking vacation of  injunction is also a significant consideration in determining whether such relief should be granted, continued, or vacated. The judgment remains a leading precedent in franchise disputes, commercial contracts, licensing arrangements, restrictive covenants, and interim injunction jurisprudence in India.

Case Details:

Title of the Case: Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Coca Cola Co. and Others

Date of Judgment/Order: 04 August 1995

Case Number: Civil Appeals Nos. 6839-6840 of 1995

Citation: 1995 AIR 2372

Name of Court: Supreme Court of India

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice S.C. Agrawal and Justice S. Saghir Ahmad

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.: Supreme Court on Enforcement of Negative Covenants

2. Interim Injunctions and Franchise Agreements: Analysis of Gujarat Bottling v. Coca Cola

3. Section 27 Contract Act Explained Through Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola

4. Supreme Court Clarifies Restraint of Trade in Commercial Contracts

5. Coca Cola vs Gujarat Bottling: Landmark Judgment on Negative Covenants

6. Enforcement of Restrictive Clauses in Franchise Agreements Under Indian Law

7. Gujarat Bottling Case: Leading Authority on Interim Injunctions in Commercial Disputes

8. Section 42 Specific Relief Act and Negative Covenants: Supreme Court Analysis

9. Franchise Disputes and Injunctive Relief in India: The Gujarat Bottling Principle

10. Commercial Contracts, Equity and Injunctions: Understanding Gujarat Bottling v. Coca Cola

11. How Courts Balance Convenience in Business Injunction Cases

12. Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Restrictive Covenants and Trade Competition

Suggested SEO Tags:

Gujarat Bottling Case, Coca Cola Case, Interim Injunction, Temporary Injunction, Negative Covenant, Restrictive Covenant, Franchise Agreement, Bottling Agreement, Commercial Contracts, Contract Law India, Section 27 Contract Act, Restraint of Trade, Specific Relief Act, Section 42 Specific Relief Act, Order 39 CPC, Balance of Convenience, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Injury, Commercial Litigation, Trademark Licensing, Franchise Law India, Coca Cola India Litigation, Pepsi Coca Cola Dispute, Equity Jurisprudence, Supreme Court Contract Law, Commercial Injunctions, Business Law India, Landmark Supreme Court Cases, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote of the Judgment:

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Others v. Coca Cola Co. and Others, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeals Nos. 6839-6840 of 1995, decided on 04.08.1995. The appeals challenged an interim injunction granted by the Bombay High Court restraining the use of Gujarat Bottling’s facilities for manufacturing and marketing competing beverages after control of the company shifted to interests associated with Pepsi. The Supreme Court upheld the injunction, holding that the negative covenant contained in the bottling and franchise agreement was enforceable during the subsistence of the contract and did not violate Section 27 of the Contract Act. The Court further held that Coca Cola had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury warranting continuation of the interim injunction.