Tuesday, July 12, 2022

Ramada International Inc Vs La Ramada World Pvt. Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 11.07.2022
CASE NO: CS(Comm) 470 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Prathiba M Singh
CASE TITLE: Ramada International Inc Vs La Ramada World Pvt. Ltd.

1. This was a case where inspite of passing of injunction order and inspite of being aware of that, the Defendants kept on using the impugned Trademark.

2.The Defendant had already been restrained from using the mark LA RAMADA, LA RAMADA WORLD etc. Para 3

3.Inspite of this order, the Defendant has registered further domain names and also created Instagram accounts containing the infringing trademark of the plaintiff. Para 4

4.In such a situation, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to issue non-bailable warrant against the Defendants. Para 9

5.Local Commissioner was also appointed to visit the premise of Defendants and take into custody all the incriminating materials. Para 11

6.Order for blocking down of impugned web site was also passed. Para 13

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Saturday, July 9, 2022

Philips Lighting Holding Vs Jai Prakash Agarwal

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.07.2022
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 46/2019
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Navin Chawla
CASE TITLE: Philips Lighting Holding Vs Jai Prakash Agarwal

1.The Plaintiff filed subject matter suit on the basis of proprietary rights in the design „T-Shaped LED Bulb‟ registered under the design
registration no. 299147 on 06.11.2017 with a reciprocity date of
08.05.2017 in Class 26-04. Para 4.

2.The observed the designs of the T-Bulb of the plaintiff and those of the defendants to be similar, if not identical. Para 19.1, 19.2

3.The court also reiterated this well settled proposition of law that tor a defense of functionality to succeed, it is not enough to say that the form has some relevance to the function. If a particular function can be achieved through a number of different forms, then a defense of functionality must fail. Following this principle of law, the Hon'ble High Court rejected the argument of the Defendant that Plaintiff's design is functional. Para 21

4.A slight trivial or infinitesimal variation from the pre-existing design shall disqualify the relevant design for registration. The change introduced should be substantial. Para 22.4

5.The Hon'ble Court refused the injunction after observing the Plaintiff's design to be trade variant. Para 22.5

6.It is unique case in the sense that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in spite of observing that Defendant's design is similar to design of the plaintiff and in spite of rejecting the argument of defendant that design of the Plaintiff was functional, was pleased to decline the injunction in favour of the Plaintiff on the ground that the same is not original and that it is prior published and merely a trade variant.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Bright Life care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07.07.2022
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 144/2022
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Prathiba M Singh
CASE TITLE: Bright Life care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

When a right holder makes its campaign popular, then any other party may try to take advantage of advertisement campaign. Advertisement campaigns play important role in expansion of business. Creation of unique advertisement campaigns requires lots of hard work and effort. Naturally monetary efforts are also involved in creation and propagation of advertisement campaign.

There may be various modes of advertisement campaigns. Audio, video or print media can be used for spread of an advertisement campaign. This articles deals with the situation when advertisement campaign is represented and propagated through video mode.

The issue involved herein is that how such advertisement campaigns , which are propagated through video mode, can be protected by the owner? What kind of intellectual property rights are there in an advertisement campaign? When an advertisement campaign is propagated through video mode, it may comprised of various elements. How intellectual property can be asserted by a right holder in such a situation?

One of such case came up before Justice Prathiba M Singh , High Court of Delhi in Suit bearing CS (Comm) 144/2022 titled as Bright Life care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., where in the Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of its intellectual property right in its advertisement campaign JIDDI HUN MAIN which was projected in video form. The Plaintiff sought relief of injunction against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants are also using similar advertising campaign, where in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its Judgement dated 07.07.2022 , was pleased to grant relief in favour of the Plaintiff against the violating content of the Defendants.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Thursday, July 7, 2022

Nippon A & L Inc Vs The Controller of Patents

This Appeal was decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its Judgement dated 05.07.2022 passed in C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 11/2022 titled as Nippon A & L Inc Vs The Controller of Patents. This Appeal has been preferred against the Order of controller of Patent, to the effect of rejecting the Patent Application of the Appellant. Para 2.

2.The facts before Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M Singh, High Court of Delhi was that the Appellant filed patent application in Japan bearing no. 2013153727 seeking patent protection for a “copolymer latex” product and process on 24th July, 2013 and corresponding to said International filing, the Appellant filed application bearing no. 201617003704 dated 2nd February, 2016 in India. Para 3.

3.A request for examination of Appellant’s application was filed on 15th March, 2017 and subsequently First Examination Report was issued on 22.11.2019. Para 3.

4. Initially the Patent was filed as product by process. When first examination was issued and the Appellant filed reply thereto dated 18.05.2020, during the the course of oral hearing , the Appellant proposed to amend the claims as process only. Subsequent thereto amended sets of claims were also filed along with written submission on 24.01.2021. Para 5.

5.The Appellant claimed that amended claims were filed in order to make the claims more clear and in order to bring definiteness in it. However the controller of Patent rejected the amended claims of the Appellant basically on the grounds that these amended claims were beyond the scope of original claims and that the same also lack inventive steps. In such a situation, the present Appeal was filed. Para 6.

6.The crux of the argument before the Hon'ble Court was that whether a Patent Application, which was filed as process by patent, can by virtue of amendments, the claims be allowed as process only, even if the subject matter claims in the nature of product only? Para 12

7.The court observed that initially the specification gives the characteristic features of the copolymer latex and the brief manner in which the process is to be carried out , hence it was product by process. The Controller of Patent issued the first examination report, where by it sought explanation from the Appellant, whether the subject matter Patent Application relate to a product patent or a process patent? In view of objections raised by the controller of Patent , the Appellant agreed to amend the claims of the Patent to process Patent only? Para 24, 27, 30.

8.The main ground of the controller in rejecting the amended claims of the Appellant was that in the original claims, process were not claimed. Hence the amended claims were beyond the scope of claims as it included the process. Para 34

9.The court observed that the specification of the subject matter Patent was detailed in which the process of emulsion polymerisation’ has been explained in the minutest form. Subsequently the unique features in the product was claimed which was resultant of the process shown in the specification. In view of objection raised by the controller, the Appellant amended the claims to change it to claims in the process. It was rejected by the controller on the ground that originally no claims were made in the process. Hence subsequently, the appellant could not have changed the claims from product to process. Para 35,36

10.The court made out distinction between a product claim and process claim. Product claim is much wider that process claim. If product claim is granted, it grants exclusive right over the product irrespective of what process adopted by the Patentee in order to achieve the product. However in a process Patent extremely limited right is granted to the Patentee only limited to the extent of process claimed in the Patent. If same product is achieved through different process , then Patentee can not extend its rights to this product. Para 37.

11. The Hon'ble Referred section 59 (1) of the Patent Act 1970, which says that disclaimer of claims are allowed. In the present case, the amendments of claims as sought for by way of disclaimer only. In amended claims , products claims were disclaimed. Para 42,44

12.The Hon'ble Court further relied upon Ayyangar Committee Report and observed that intention of this Report was to give broader and wider permissibility for amendment of claims and specification prior to the grant and restrict the same post the grant and advertisement thereof. Para 54

13. The court observed that in the subject matter case the Appellant was amending and narrowing the scope of the claims and not expanding the same. The process sought to be claimed in the amended claims has been clearly disclosed in the patent specification. Hence the controller's observation that amended claims were beyond the scope , was not held to be tenable in the eyes of law. Para 58.

14.As the Controller has passed the order only to extent of amendments in claims, it was set aside to that extent. However the matter was remanded back to the controller to decide the fate the Patent application with respect to other legal embargo , i.e. novelty, lack of inventive steps etc. Para 59,60

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539
=============

Ircon International Ltd. Vs Reacon Engineers Pvt. Ltd

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 04.07.2022
CASE NO: OMP (Comm) 488 of 2019
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Vibhu Bakhru
CASE TITLE: Ircon International Ltd. Vs Reacon Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Petition which was originally filed , was containing only 72 pages . Para 13

2.The Original Petition was accompanied with statement of truth , which is mandatory. Para 13

3.Subsequebtly filed petition comprised of 1325 pages. Hence entire framework of the petition was changed. Para 14

4.The initial petition was not accompanied with valid Vakalatnama. Hence the original filing could not be termed as valid filing. Para 15

5.Hence the delay in filing the Petition was not condoned. Para 15

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539
=============

El Baik Food System Vs Arsalan Wahid Gilkar

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.07.2022
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 283 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Prathiba M Singh
CASE TITLE: El Baik Food System Vs Arsalan Wahid Gilkar

Brief Note on the case: 1.After passing of interim injunction order, defendants got registered similar domain name. Para 4

2.Godaddy.com is direct the impugned violating domain names within 3 days. Para 10

3.Defendants were also using HAT device of plaintiff. Para 11

4.Local commissioner was appointed to visit the premise of defendant and impugned bill board etc shall be removed from the defendants premises. Para 11

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539
=============

Bijoy Vs Gopinath and Ors

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 17.06.2022
CASE NO: OP(C) No.1600 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Kerala at Ernaculum
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree C.S.Dias
CASE TITLE: Bijoy Vs Gopinath and Ors

Brief Note on the case: There is no legal stipulation under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC that counter claim should be headed by a cause title. Para 11

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539
=============

Anugya Gupta Vs Ajay Kumar

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.07.2022
CASE NO: CS(Comm) No. 422 of 2020
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Navin Chawla
CASE TITLE: Anugya Gupta Vs Ajay Kumar

Brief Note on the case: 1.Plaintiff adopted trademark SARKARIRESULT on 01.01.2012. Para 2.

2. Defendant adopted SARKARIRESULT.INFO. Para 9.

3.Defendant also applied for SARKARIREULT before Registrar of Trademark. Para 9.

4.Defendants trademark was also registered. Para 9.

5.Defendant alleged to have adopted the impugned Trademark in 2015. Para 15

6.Plaintiff has already put on record its domain name SARKARIRESULT.COM registered on 01.01.2012. Para 24.

7. Registration does not prove its user. Para 32

8.The Defendant filed application as proposed to be used. Such declaration is final. Para 32

9.Plaintiff was granted relief as the defendant itself has applied for trademark registration, hence can not plead the same to be generic. Para 34

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539
=============

3M Company Vs Vikas Sinha and another

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.07.2022
CASE NO: CS(OS) No. 144 of 2019
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Shree Navin Chawla
CASE TITLE: 3M Company Vs Vikas Sinha and another

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Defendants filed the written statement after delay of 118 days after service of summons. Para 2.5.

2. The written statement, which was filed after delay of 118 days, was not accompanied with any application seeking condonation of delay. Para 5.6.

3.The reason given by the defendant that the same was trying to amicably settle the dispute does not amount to be plausible reason. Para 5.9.

4.In such situation, the application seeking condonation of delay was rightly rejected. Para 5.10.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539
=============

Saturday, July 2, 2022

Guidelines for making a Patent Application ready for grant

Pre grant and post grant opposition proceedings, if any,  may precede the grant of a patent. However, the Patent Application must be filed first in order to be granted.

According to the Patent Act 1970, which governs law pertaining to intellectual property rights in patents, patent applications must be filed and pursued within a certain time period.

A patent application must be filed within a certain amount of time in order for the patent to be granted. How does the time limit work? We will look at different provisions governing this process.

In order to appreciate this process, Section 6, 7 of Patent Act 1970 along with its sub sections are reproduced as under:

“6. Persons entitled to apply for patents:

(1) Subject to the provisions contained in section 134, an application for a patent for an invention may be made by any of the following persons, that is to say,-

(a) by any person claiming to be the true and first investor of the invention;

(b) by any person being the assignee of the person claiming to be the true and first inventor in respect of the right to make such an application;

(c) by the legal representative of any deceased person who immediately before his death was entitled to make such an application.

(2) An application under sub-section (1) may be made by any of the persons referred to therein either alone or jointly with any other person.

7. Form of application
8.
(1) Every application for a patent shall be for one invention only and shall be made in the prescribed form and filed in the patent office.

(2) Where the application is made by virtue of an assignment of the right to apply for a patent for the invention, there shall be furnished with the application, or within such period as may be prescribed after the filing of the application, proof of the right to make the application.

(3) Every application under this section shall state that the applicant is in possession of the invention and shall name the owner claiming to be the true and first inventor; and where the person so claiming is not the applicant or one of the applicants, the application shall contain a declaration that the applicant believes the person so named to be the true and first inventor.

(4) Every such application (not being a convention application) shall be accompanied by a provisional or a complete specification.”
Section 6 of the Patent Act governs the first step in filing a patent application, while Section 7 of the Patent Act governs the form of the patent application. Section 8 addresses the requirement for foreign application disclosure, while Sections 9 and 10 address the requirements for provisional and complete specification.

The publication of the patent application in a patent journal is the second step in the patent application process. Section 11A of the Patent Act of 1970 and Rule 24 of the Patent Rules 2003 govern this.

Typically, the patent application is published in the Patent Journal within 18 months of filing. However, there is a procedure for urgent publication of the patent application upon payment of an urgent fee. The urgent filing request is governed by Section 11 A (2) of the Patent Act 1970 and Rule 24A of the Patent Act 2003.

The third stage of the patent application process has begun. It entails submitting a request for examination, which is governed by Section 11B of the Patent Act 1970 and Section 24 B (1) of the Patent Rules 2003.

According to Section 24 B (1) of the Patent Rules 2003, the request for examination must be made within 48 months of the date of priority of application or the date of filing of the patent application, whichever is earlier.
To better understand this process, Rule 24 of Patent Rule 2003 and its sub sections are reproduced below:

“Chapter IV Publication and Examination of Applications

24. Publication of application:

The period for which an application for patent shall not ordinarily be open to public under sub-section (1) of section 11A shall be eighteen months from the date of filing of application or the dale of priority of the application, whichever is earlier

Provided that the period within which the Controller shall publish the application in the journal shall ordinarily be one month from the date of expiry of said period, or one month from the date of request for publication under rule 24A.

24A. Request for publication:

A request for publication under sub-section (2) of section 11 A shall be made in Form 9.

24B. Examination of application:

1.i. A request for examination under section 11 13 shall be made in Form 18 within forty-eight months from the date of priority of the application or from the date of filing of the application, whichever is earlier;

ii.   The period within which the request for examination under sub-section (3) of section 11B to be made shall be forty-eight months from the date of priority if applicable, or forty-eight months from the date of filing of the application;

iii.  The request for examination under sub-section (4) of section 11B shall be made within forty-eight months from the date of priority or from the date of filing of the application, or within six months from the date of revocation of the secrecy direction, whichever is later;

iv.  The request for examination of application as filed according to the 'Explanation' under sub-section (3) of section 16 shall be made within forty-eight months from the date of filing of the application or from the date of priority of the first mentioned application or within six months from the date of filing of the further application, whichever is later;

v.   The period for making request for examination under section 11B, of the applications filed before the 1st day of January, 2005 shall be the period specified under the section 11B before the' commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 or the period specified under these rules, whichever expires later.

2.i. The period within which the Controller shall refer the application and specification and other documents to the examiner in respect of the applications where the request for examination has been received shall ordinarily be one month from the date its publication or one month from the date of the request for examination whichever is later:

Provided that such reference shall be made in order in which the request is filed under sub-rule (1).

i. The period within which the examiner shall make the report under sub-section (2) of section 12, shall ordinarily be one month but not exceeding three months from the date of reference of the application to him by the Controller;

ii. the period within which the Controller shall dispose off the report of the examiner shall ordinarily be one month from the date of the receipt of the such report by the Controller.

3.A first examination report along with the application and specification shall be sent to the applicant or his authorised agent ordinarily within six months from the date of the request for examination or six months from date of publication whichever is later. In case other interested person files the request, for examination, an intimation of such examination may be sent to such interested person.

4.The time for putting an application in order for grant under section 21 shall be twelve months from the date on which the first statement of objection is issued to the applicant to comply with the requirements.”

Now, within one month of publication or within one month of the applicant's request for examination, whichever comes first, the Controller of Patents must recommend the published Patent Application to the examiner of Patents for examination. The Patent Rules of 2003, Rule 24B(2)(1), governs this procedure.

The controller of patents must refer the subject to the patent examiner, who must then deliver a report within one month after receiving the referral. Rule 24B(2)(ii) of the Patent Rules 2003 governs this exercise.

The Controller of Patent must dispose of the examiner's report within one month of receiving it, while subsequent stages are controlled by Rule 24 B (2) (iii) of the Patent Rules 2003.

The issuance of the first examination report is the following action, and it must be completed within a month of the disposal of the examiner's report in accordance with Rule 24B(3) of the Patent Rules 2003.

The applicant must now respond to the examination report and, if necessary, any additional objections raised by the controller in accordance with Rule 24 B. (iv). But no deadline has been established for it.

Setting a deadline for granting the application within six months of the date the initial examination report is issued is the next stage. This timeline is stipulated in Rule 24B(5) of the Patent Rules of 2003, and it may also be extended by a further three months under Rule B(6) of the same rules.

A patent applicant is required to complete all required compliances on time in accordance with Section 21 of the Patent Act of 1970, which sets the time for filing an application before it can be granted, or the application will be regarded abandoned.

It has not been made clear if the applicant must submit a response to the initial examination report in accordance with Rule 24 B(2)(iii) of the Patent Rules 2003.

However, the maximum period for putting a patent application in order for grant is nine months, as per Rules 24 B (5) and (6).

Due to all of these considerations, it is possible that it will take a maximum of nine months to complete the test report's needs.

Additionally, the pre-grant opposition proceeding, if any, is part of the process of granting a patent. Even in pre-grant opposition proceedings, the requirement of timely filing of the reply and evidence applies.

Nonetheless, it is the applicant's responsibility to meet the requirements of the first examination report or any further objections raised by the controller of examiner, if any, within 9 months. It is critical for any patent applicant to respond to the patent controller's objection in a timely manner.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court,
Email: ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
Mob:9990389539

Friday, July 1, 2022

Culver Max Entertainment Vs f1.mylivecricket.live and Ors

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 27.06.2020
CASE NO: CS (Comm) 439 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Culver Max Entertainment Vs f1.mylivecricket.live and Ors
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Judge Shri Sanjeev Narula

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief of permanent injunction against the Defendants to restrain them from infringing the rights of the Plaintiff in the forthcoming India-England International Cricket Series 2022.

2.The Defendants are in fact rogue infringing websites, which are engaged in the business of uploading pirated and unlicensed content. Among the various illegal acts done by them is the live streaming of various sporting
events.

3. The relief were asked against the afore mentioned rogue websites which were infringing plaintiff's right which has been acquired from England
and Wales Cricket Board Limited (ECB) to broadcast/ communicate the said
Sporting Event to the public in the territories of inter alia India

4.The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to grant ex-parte ad interim injunction against the afore mentioned 92 rogue web sites in one go.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Abhishek chaturvedi Vs State of UP

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 27.06.2020
CASE NO: Criminal Misc Bail Application 19599 of 2022
CASE TITLE: Abhishek chaturvedi Vs State of UP
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Judge Shri Ajit Singh

Brief Note on the case: 1.The Petitioner filed application seeking bail in relation to offence committed inter alia within the provision of Copyright Act.

2.Basic reason for grant of bail was that another accused with similar role assigned in commission of offence, has already been granted bail.

3. It was also submitted by the counsel for the Applicant that in case he is enlarged on bail. he would not be misusing the liberty.

4.Though the state opposed the bail. however parity of the applicant with co-accused was not denied. In such a situation, bail was granted to the Applicant.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

#Adv_Ajay_Amitabh_Suman #Legalupdate #Legalblog #Legalnews #IP_Adjutor #Ipupdate #Iprlitigation #Ipr #Iprblog #Iprupdate #Iplitigation #Law #Lawyers #Litigation #Allahabadhighcourt #Bail #Copyright #Offence #Coaccused

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog