02-11-2018 – 15-05-2023 The rule flowing from the maxim ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’ has been i) considered in Hari Shankar Jain, (1978) 4 SCC 16 and ii) explained in Mary Seward v. Owner of “Vera Cruz”, (1884) 10 AC 59, 68. Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts, [Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 87-101 of 2014]. […]
Read more "Random Collectibles of Justice M.R. Shah at Supreme Court"Extolling of one’s positive features is permissible. However, denigration of a rival’s or a competitor’s product is completely impermissible. It would be reading too much into Santoor’s impugned advertisement, in my opinion, to extract from it anything derogatory or deprecating regarding Dettol. It does not even obliquely refer to moisturizing qualities, present or absent, of […]
Read more "Comparative Advertising IV"The question would arise, whether invention claimed in ‘Air Decontamination Assembly’ [Application No. 201741016833] is no more than a workshop improvement/mere application of an old contrivance? Can it be described as a lucky accident? In opinion of this Court, subject invention is not a mere addition to a well-known combination. It has some new features […]
Read more "Air Purifier"Campus Activewear Limited’s press for relief can only be decided on claim of passing off. On a comparison, it is undeniable, there are structural and phonetic similarities between ‘CAMPUS’ and ‘CAMPS’. Rama Shankar Garg, sole proprietor of M/s. Baba Footwear, is the registered owner of the mark ‘CAMPS’. ‘CAMPS’ was accorded registration as early as […]
Read more "Rip Van Winkle Policy"It is now settled, proprietor of one registered trade mark can sue proprietor of another registered trade mark [Raj Kumar Prasad v. Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd., (2014) 60 PTC 51, Corza International v. Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 153]. It is trite, Court has to tread cautiously when it has to […]
Read more "Curse of Biscuit Cases"Appellant, through Application No. 3757855, sought registration of ‘COCK’ word mark for ‘water and colour pistols, water and colour guns, water and colour sprayers, being toys included in Class 28’. The objection of Learned Senior Examiner predicated on registration granted to Chinna Nadar. Chinna Nadar’s mark is a composite device mark which includes words: ‘COCK […]
Read more "Toy Pistol"Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi rejected registration of a device mark in Class 39 on ground, subject trademark is laudatory and objectionable in terms of Section 9(1)(b) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999. Counsel appearing on behalf of NRI Taxi Service Ltd. correctly places reliance on Mohd. Rafiq v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd., […]
Read more "Laudatory"Only one Academy Award has ever been revoked in history of Oscars. ‘Young Americans’ won for Best Documentary in 1969. It was discovered, ‘Young Americans’ had played in a theater in October, 1967. Oscar was handed over to ‘Journey Into Self’. _____ 03.10.1980 – Chhabirani was gang-raped… 23.04.2002 – We are satisfied, present case is a […]
Read more "Chhabirani"‘SUBERB’ is not phonetically similar to ‘SUBWAY’. ‘Sub’, when used in context of sandwiches, is an abbreviation for ‘Submarine’, which represents a well-known variety of long-bodied sandwiches. Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Bikas, 1975 CarswellOnt 1001-Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Emma Foods, 1976 CarswellOnt 1006-Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Haralambos Voultsos, 1977 CarswellOnt 1041 testifies to commonality of […]
Read more "Submarine"The Trademarks Act, 1999 Section 2(1)(za)(iv): ‘trade description’ means any description/statement/indication, direct or indirect, as to country in which goods were made/produced/provided. Section 2(1)(i)(I): ‘false trade description’ means a ‘trade description’ which is untrue or misleading in a material respect as regards goods to which it is applied. Section 9(2)(a): a mark shall not be […]
Read more "Swiss Military"‘GLUCON-D TANGY ORANGE’ v. ‘DABUR GLUCOPLUS-C ORANGE’ The TV commercial identifies ‘orange glucose’ as ‘product category’. But, is it disparaging in nature? Disparagement is an act of belittling someone’s goods or services with a misleading remark. The TV Commercial does not disparage any ‘orange glucose’ drink. Disparagement cannot be a far-fetched inference. It would […]
Read more "Comparative Advertising III"Plaintiffs allege infringement by Defendant of their Registered Design No. 306577 which was the subject matter of Diageo Brands B.V. v. Great Galleon Ventures Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2350 [‘Great Galleon’] as well. Senior Advocate, Amit Sibal points out, Section 22 of The Designs Act, 2000 identifies ‘obvious’ and ‘fraudulent’ imitation as the test. […]
Read more "Design Piracy / No Bottle, Just Bottle II"Learned Counsel for Appellant-Defendant states, Learned Single Judge has erred in not considering: Respondent-Plaintiff had bypassed Section 12A of The Commercial Court Act, 2015, which prescribes pre-institution mediation as a mandatory requirement. Respondent-Plaintiff is not only a prior adopter but also a prior registrant and allegation of suppression is irrelevant. Court is in agreement, packaging […]
Read more "Quia Timet III"My Lord, Allegations in Plaint are Sufficient? No. In assessing whether a quia timet plaint can be rejected outright [Order 7, Rule 11], Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v. Natco Pharma Limited, (2014) 212 DLT 321 cautions, a quia timet action must not be speculative, merely alleging without factual basis. The statement of claim must allege […]
Read more "Quia Timet II / The Drastic Power of Rejecting a Plaint VII"Plaintiffs are manufacturers of containers, used to store food products, sold under the brand name ’Tupperware’. Defendant is also a manufacturer of containers, used for storage of food products, sold under the brand name ‘Signoraware’. Plaintiffs have brought this action seeking remedies in respect of Plaintiffs’ Suit Products [MM Square, Best Lunch Bag and Spice […]
Read more "Product Configuration Trade Dress"Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 177 observed, threat of selling offending goods in Delhi would itself confer jurisdiction to Courts in Delhi to entertain a suit claiming injunction. Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688 held, where an issue of territorial jurisdiction is raised, plaints need to […]
Read more "Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu"Amitabh Bachchan alleges violation of his ‘publicity rights as a celebrity’ as has also been recognized by this Court in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382. It cannot seriously be disputed, Amitabh Bachchan is a well-known personality and is also represented in various advertisements. Amitabh Bachchan is aggrieved by unauthorized […]
Read more "The Case of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan"Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., proprietor of the trade mark ‘FORZEST’, prayed for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from using the mark ‘FOLZEST’. DWD Pharmaceuticals asserted, Sun Pharmaceutical obtained above ad-interim ex-parte injunction by concealing various material facts. DWD Pharmaceuticals is a registered proprietor of ‘ZEST Family of Marks’ since 1983. Sr. […]
Read more "Family of Marks"The enactment of The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 resulted in abolishing of Intellectual Property Appellate Board. All matters pending before IPAB stood transferred to High Courts. High Courts having territorial jurisdiction in respect of Revocation Petitions under Section 64 have to be determined on basis of where cause of action arises. The cause of action […]
Read more "Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970 II"Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine Ltd., [1985] RPC 59; England and Wales Court of Appeals in Pozzoli Spa v. BDMO SA, [2006] EWHC 1398 (Ch); F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2016 (65) PTC 1 (DEL); Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd., (2020) SCC OnLine Del 1700; […]
Read more "Simplicity in Invention"
The Last Word 
You must be logged in to post a comment.