Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 194(2012)DLT23; MIPR2012(3)191

By

Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Case, 2012| Case Summary


Facts/Plaint

  1. This appeal was raised before the division bench of the Delhi High Court from the judgment of the single bench of this Court in an action for infringement of a trademark registered by the plaintiff-respondents.
  2. The respondents pleaded that the appellant was purchasing printers from a foreign market and selling them in the Indian market under the same trademark in which the plaintiff bought i.e. "SAMSUNG". Hence the appellant was infringing the registered trademark in India by importing and selling the goods without the consent or permission of the registered proprietor. S.29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 bars such unpermitted import and sell.
  3. The respondents submitted that since those imported printers were not made for the Indian market, the appellants by selling them to the Indian people are causing injury to them.
  4. The defendants/appellants contended that the exception to S.29 as under S.30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 'protects such unpermitted import and sell in the market if they are selling the product in as it is condition.
  5. The present issue raised over this contention of protection under S.30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Issues

  1. Whether the word "market" used in S.30(3) means only domestic market or international market.
  2. Whether the Trade Marks Act 1999 embodies the National Exhaustion Policy or the International Exhaustion Policy.
  3. Whether the respondents are entitled to oppose further dealing under S. 30(4).

Decisions

  1. The "market" under S.30(3) is the international market.
  2. The Trade Marks Act 1999 adopted the principle of International Exhaustion.
  3. If the appellant provides the warranty on his own, he shall inform the customers that the products are imported and the respondents do not provide after-sales services and warranties.

Reasoning

  1. The plain reading of S.30(4) provides the owner of a registered trademark the right to oppose further dealing if the goods have been impaired or in changed conditions irrespective of the market (national or international) in which it has been earlier sold by the registered owner.
  2. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to Trade Mark Bill 1999 explained clause 30 (formally S.30) as it wipes out the trademark rights of the owner of a registered trademark if the product has once been sold "in any geographical market" subject to the changed or impaired condition of the product. It clearly shows the legislative intent to recognize the principle of International Exhaustion.
  3. In the TRIPS Agreement, India permitted parallel import.
  4. The Rajya Sabha Standing Committee, when the Copyright Amendment Bill 2010 was introduced, reported that the concept of International Exhaustion provided in S. 107A of the Patent Act, 1971 and in S. 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and S. 2(m) of Copyright Act were similar.
  5. All the legitimate reasons to oppose further dealings of a product under S.30(4) can arise only in the case of imported goods. This indicates that Indian law has adopted the International Exhaustion Policy. Some legitimate reasons are:-
    1. Difference in services and warranties
    2. Difference in promotional and advertising efforts
    3. Difference in packaging
    4. Differences in quality, control, pricing, and presentation
    5. The difference in language of the literature provided with the product.
  6. The respondents do not provide any warranty to their customers, nor the product is being sold in impaired or changed conditions by the appellants, the respondents are not entitled to oppose as no legitimate reason exists.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more