Niyamskanoon

Posts

Showing posts with the label IPR

Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. 15 March, 2013

Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. Case Summary Facts The issue referred to this full bench was raised out of an appeal made to the division bench where the appellant was claiming the protection of its registered design for an S-shaped spatula from infringing by the respondent. The referred issues were concerned with the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v. Amit Jain & Anr ., 2009 in which- they held that the term "prior publication" as mentioned in S.4(b) & S.19(1)(b) does not include publication abroad by the existence of the design in the records of the Registrar which is open for public inspection. they concurred with the judgement of the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Gopal Glass Works Ltd. 2006 and held that mere publication of designs, specifications, drawings and/or demonstrations by the patent office in a foreign country would not make a design registered in India liable to cancellation und

Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited 2008 Case Summary/Interpretation|| Bharat Glass Tube Ltd v Gopal Glass Works Ltd summary Facts In a suit filed by the respondent (Gopal Glass Works Ltd), the District Court decreed in his favour and restrained the appellant (Bharat Glass Tube Ltd) from infringing the design registered by the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under S.19 of the Design Act, 2000 before the Controller of Patents & Designs for the cancellation of the registration of the respondent's design on the ground that the design was not new or original and has already been published in India. The appellant submitted two documents for his contention:- The German company that manufactured the roller with the design for the respondent had already registered the design in 1992 for the roller. A document downloaded from the official website of the Patent Office of the United Kingdom shows that the same design was registered in the name

Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Case, 2012| Case Summary Facts/Plaint 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. 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. 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. The defendants/appellants contended that the exception to S.29 as under S.30(3) of the T

Dabur India Limited v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., 2005 Case Summary/Brief Plaint/Facts An action for the infringement of the registered trademark under S.29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was raised by the plaintiff. The suit was filed over a visual advertisement launched by the defendants for their product which was allegedly disparaging the rival product of the plaintiff. In the advertisement, a cine-star has stopped a person from buying "Dabur Lal Dant Manjan Powder" by showing that the powder is more abrasive and dangerous as compared to the defendants' product. As a result of the advertisement, the plaintiff's share in Ayurvedic tooth powder declined from earlier 80%. Contentions of the Counsel for the defendant The advertisement doesn't identify or refer to the plaintiff's product. The defendants are entitled to point out the defects in the rival product while praising its own product. The criticism was based on the studies conducted in the USA whic

Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del) (DB)|Case Study/Summary/Brief Facts An action for infringement raised by the plaintiff/appellants (Pepsi Co. Inc.) against the defendants/respondents (Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd.) on the grounds that - The commercials/advertisements launched on television by the respondents to promote their products are disparaging the products of the appellants thereby infringing the trademark and copyright of the appellants in relation to its registered trademark "PEPSI", "GLOBE DEVICE" and the phrase "Yeh Dil Maange More". The roller coaster commercial has been copied by the respondents, thereby infringing the copyright of the appellant. The Single Judge Bench of this Court dismissed the application for interim injunction and held that the disputed commercial of the respondents is a healthy competition and a mere poking the product of the appellant which is permissible, therefore the appellant's tradem

N. Ranga Rao and Sons v. Anil Garg, 2006 Case Summary Facts/Plaint Both parties were involved in some kind of business of manufacturing and sale of agarbattis. The plaintiff filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the packaging of the defendant's six "Dia" products which were alleged to be similar to the plaintiff's "Lia" products. Also, it was alleged that the defendant's trademark "Dia" had been deliberately copied from the plaintiff's mark "Lia" to deceive the consumer. Also, the name of the product, price, and quantity of the sticks per pack, and theme and layout packaging were similar. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant was trying to utilize the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff to pass off its products. Issues Whether the defendant's trademark and its artistic features and labels are identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's

ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products Case, 2010| Case Summary Facts The plaintiff filed a suit for an injunction order restraining the defendant from using a mark that was alleged to be closely similar to and identical to the plaintiff's "WELCOMGROUP" logo. The plaintiff stated that the logo was an essential part of their various registered trademark in respect of several classes and was being used for their hotel services and variety of ready-to-eat food products. The disputed logo was used by the defendant over the packets of cigarettes. Submissions of the Counsel for the Plaintiff The plaintiff claimed the infringement action, particularly, under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by submitting that all the requirements under S.29(4) were fulfilled. By referring to the case of "Ramdev Food Products Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Ors., 2006 they argued that an action for passing off and infringement can also be raised if the get-up of the disputed m

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Murugan Enterprises Case Summary|| Case study|| Exception to Infringement Facts The appellant-plaintiff (Hawkins Cookers Ltd.) instituted a suit alleging that the use of the words " Suitable for Hawkins Cookers " on the packet of gaskets manufactured and traded by the defendant-respondent (Ms. Murugan Enterprises) was infringing their registered trademark "Hawkins". The defendant claimed protection under S.30(2)(d) which allows the use of a registered trademark in certain situations. The plaintiff contended that it is not reasonably necessary to indicate that the gasket is adaptable to the cookers manufactured by the appellant as the gasket can be used for every cooker of the same size manufactured by any manufacturer. The single-judge bench of this Court favoured the defendant by assuming that the respondent was manufacturing gaskets specifically for special sizes of pressure cookers manufactured by the appellant. Issue Whether

Balkrishna Hatcheries v. Nandos International Ltd. 2007 Case Study Facts A suit was instituted for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using his mark "Nandos" which was allegedly infringing the registered trademark "Nandus" of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has registered the trademark "Nandus" in respect of processed and frozen meat products and also applied for registration in respect of the restaurant business. The defendant also registered its trademark "Nandos" in more than 30 countries and applied in India for its restaurant business earlier than the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed infringement action on the ground of S.29(1), S.29(2)(b), and S. 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff also claimed an action for passing off. Issue Whether the defendant had infringed the trademark "Nandus" registered by the plaintiff in respect of the processed and frozen meat products. Observations To raise an

Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc. (2004)||Case Study||Concept of Passing off Facts A suit was instituted by the respondents for an order of injunction based on action for passing off restraining the appellants from using the mark "OCUFLOX". The said mark was allegedly used by the respondents prior to the appellants and also has been registered in various countries except India, though applied for registration. Although the ad interim injunction was issued by the District Court, the High Court vacated this order by observing that the goods of respondents were not being sold in India and the appellants were the first to introduce the product in India. Issue Whether the High Court was right in vacating the injunction order. Ratio Decidendi While determining the likelihood of deceiving or confusing the nature of the trademark, the Court shall consider the worldwide presence and reputation of the goods. However, the above consideration shall not devoid an India

Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharma. Ltd. 2001||Case Summary/Interpretation||Trade Marks Act Introduction Although the Trade Marks Act, of 1999 does not provide for a specific section regarding the "passing off" concept, it is recognized and applied by Courts in India based on common law principles and judicial precedents. It is a well-established legal doctrine to protect unregistered trademarks and other intellectual property rights. Facts of the Case A suit was filed on the allegation that the use of the mark "Falcitab" by the respondents was deceptively similar to his unregistered mark "Falcigo" and hence would cause confusion to the general public and pass off his drug. Both the mark was used for a drug to be used for the treatment of "Falciparum Malaria", though with a different composition. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the grounds that their packing and appearance were different and also that their only customers were

Parle Products v. J.P. and Co. Case study||Case Summary/Interpretation Introduction S.29(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for the protection of exclusive rights placed by the registration of a trademark. This section bars from the use of a registered trademark by a person not being the proprietor of the mark or having permission to use it. This section also bars the use of such a mark which is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark. Facts The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for an order of injunction restraining the defendant from using a wrapper of biscuit which had been alleged to be deceptively similar to the wrapper registered as a trademark by the appellant. The wrapper of the appellant contained the picture of a girl in the centre of a farmyard carrying a pale of water and cows and hens around her and a house and trees in the background. The wrapper of the defendant contained the picture of a girl in the centre of a farmyard supporting with her on

Carrefour v. Suburaman 2007 (35) PTC 225(Mad.)|| Case Summary Facts The plaintiff was associated with the retail business in France and several other countries. They were the proprietor of trade mark "Carrefour" in several countries for various goods including furniture. Also, they had registered the trademark "Carrefour" in India but not for furniture. The defendants in the business of furniture applied for registration of the mark "Carrefour". A civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff (Carrefour) in February 2007 for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark "Carrefour" and "C" logos. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff made an application for an interlocutory order regarding the same issue which had been granted by this Court. Although the respondents stated that they had already discontinued the use of the"C" logo immediately after the receipt of the

K.R. Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co. AIR 1970 Case Summary Introduction The present case deals with the S.12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 which bars the registration of a trade mark in respect of any goods or description of goods if the mark is identical with or deceptively similar to an already registered trademark in the name of a different proprietor in respect of same goods or description of goods. This section is mentioned in S.11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Facts Both the appellant and the respondents were involved in the same business of manufacturing of snuff. An application for the registration of a label as a trade mark was made by the appellant, which had been opposed by the respondent. The label consisted a picture of goddess Sri Andal and the word "Sri Andal Madras Snuff" in Tamil, Devnagari , Telugu and Kannada. The grounds for opposing the registration as stated by the respondent was that the proposed mark was deceptiv

Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks|| Geep Flashlight Industries case summary Introduction This case was adjudged by the Court under the provisions of the Act of 1958 i.e. Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,1958. Section 9 of this Act places certain requirements to be fulfilled by the mark (words) to get it registered as a trademark. Fulfillment of all the conditions doesn't assure its registration because this Act also provided certain discretion to the Registrar under S.18(4) to accept the application or refuse to register. However, this discretion has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. Facts The business of the appellant company (Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd.) was to manufacture torches and their sale thereafter. The company was carrying on its sale of torches by the name of "Janta" torch. A few years later, the appellant company made an application to the Registrar to register the word "Janta" as a trademark for its t

The Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks|| The Imperial Tobacco Co. case summary Introduction A very interesting case regarding the registration of a word as a trademark, which doesn't have any direct reference to the character or quality of the goods. This case discussed the validity of the registration of a geographical word as a trademark. This case was decided by The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 Facts The appellant company (The Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd.) applied to register the word "Simla, outlined by snow-clad hills " as a trademark for its product. When the registrar refused to register, this appeal was made after its earlier appeal under S. 109 of The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. was dismissed on the grounds that the word "Simla" is a famous geographical name and therefore it can not be registered except on evidence of distinctiveness. Issue Whether the word "Simla" is entitled to reg

Section 9 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958

Section 9 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 9. Requisites for registration in Parts A and B of the register. A trade mark shall not be registered in Part A of the register unless it contains or consists of at least one of the following essential particulars, namely:- (a) the name of a company, individual or firm represented in a special or particular manner; (b) the signature of the applicant for registration or some predecessor in his business; (c) one or more invented words; (d) one or more words having no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods and not being, according to its ordinary signification, a geographical name or a surname or a personal name or any common abbreviation thereof or the name of a sect, caste or tribe in India; (e) any other distinctive mark. A name, signature or word, other than such as fall within the descriptions in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) shall not be registrable in Part A of the register except upon evi

M/s. Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks (1954-5)||Case Summary Introduction Hindustan Development Corporation is a case of the year 1955 that was basically concerned about the grounds for the registration and non-registration of a trademark. This case was decided under the provisions of Section 6 of the Trade Marks Act of 1940. Similar provisions regarding S.6 of the above-mentioned Act are also mentioned in S.9 of the currently followed Trade Marks Act, 1999. Facts The appellant was involved in the business of manufacturing hydrogenated groundnut oil for which they wanted to register the word "Rasoi" as its trademark. The present issues in this case were raised over the refusal to register the trademark by the Respondent authority. Issues Whether the word "Rasoi" has a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods within the meaning of S.6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act,1940 (old Act). If the word "Rasoi&

Search This Blog

Niyamskanoon

Posts

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. 15 March, 2013

Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited 2008 (37) PTC 1 (SC)

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

Dabur India Limited v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. AIR 2005 Del 102

Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del) (DB)

N. Ranga Rao and Sons v. Anil Garg 128 (2006) DLT 649 : 2006 (32) PTC15 (Del)

ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products SA 2010(42)PTC572(Del)

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Murugan Enterprises, 2012(50)PTC389(Del)

Balkrishna Hatcheries v. Nandos International Ltd. 2007(35)PTC295(Bom)

Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc. (2004) 12 SCC 624

Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73 : 2001 PTC 300 (SC)

Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. and Co. (1972) 1 SCC 618

Carreefour v. Suburaman 2007 (35) PTC 225(Mad.)

K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co. AIR 1970 SC 146

Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks AIR 1972 Del. 179

The Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks AIR 1977 Cal. 413

Section 9 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958

M/s. Hindusthan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks (1954-5) 59 C.W.N. 320 : AIR 1955 Cal. 519