Micolube India Ltd. v. Rakesh Kumar trading as Saurabh Industries & Ors.; CS(OS) No. 1446 of 2011 Mohan Lal, Proprietor of Mourya Industries v. Sona Paint & Hardwares; CS(OS) No. 384 of 2008 199 (2013) DLT 740 Similar questions of law were involved in the above mentioned cases. The said questions of law were…
UTV Software Communications Limited, Mumbai v. Motion Pictures Association, Delhi MANU/CO/0053/2012 FACTS: UTV Software Communications Limited is a producer, title holder and distributor of feature films. The members of the Motion Pictures Association, Delhi (MPA) are engaged in the business of production, distribution and exhibition of films. MPA governs the arena of distribution and exhibition…
Facts: The respondent was engaged in the production of consumer goods as detergent cakes, bathing soaps, chemicals etc. The various brands produced by the respondent under the three broad categories namely toilet soaps, laundry soaps and detergents. It was alleged that the respondent has been indulging in certain unfair trade practices among which one was…
Union of India v. Malhotra Book Depot 2013 (54) PTC 165 (Del) (DB) FACTS: The Respondent had a Trade Mark ‘MBD’. The said Trade Mark was to be renewed on 23rd November, 1984. When in April, 2010 the Respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of it’s Trade Mark ‘MBD’ it applied for…
Institute of Cost Accountants of India v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Anr. W.P. No. 2088 of 2012 (High Court of Bombay) FACTS: The Petitioner had filed a Trade Mark application, which was objected by the Registrar of Trade Marks vide letter dated 19th September, 2011. However, said letter was merely uploaded on…
Himalaya Drug Company v. S.B.L. Ltd. 2013 (53) PTC 1 (Del.) (DB) FACTS: The Appellant filed a suit against the Respondent for infringement of trade mark Liv.52 by use of the trade mark Liv-T. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the suit of the Appellants holding that the mark ‘LIV’ is publici juris and there is…
Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics 2013 (53) PTC 112 (Del.) (DB) ISSUE: Whether the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 embodies the International Exhaustion Principle or National Exhaustion principle when the Registered Proprietor of Trade Mark places the goods in the market under Registered Trade Mark. FACTS: Samsung (Korea) and it’s Indian subsidiary Samsung India filed…
Wheatley v Drillsafe Ltd.[1] Facts: Wheatley (W), the proprietor and licensee of a European patent relating to a threaded hole cutting device, appealed against a decision[2] holding that the patent was invalid on the ground of common general knowledge and accordingly should be revoked, and also that, in any event, there had been no infringement…
Verathon Medical (Canada) Ltd v Aircraft Medical Ltd.[1] Facts: A developer and manufacturer of medical devices (V), incorporated in Canada, alleged that a manufacturer of medical equipment (M) from UK infringed V’s patent in respect of an intubation instrument. V also sought for amendment of the patent.[2] M counterclaimed for revocation of the patent on…
Lubrizol Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (No.5)[1] Facts: Lubrizol (L) sued Esso Petroleum (E) for infringement of its patent relating to lubricating oil. E denied infringement, alleging that the patent was invalid, and counterclaimed for its revocation. The grounds for invalidity were that the claim was ambiguous and was not fairly based, that the…
Kirin-Amgen Inc v Transkaryotic Therapies Inc (No.2)[1] Facts: Kirin-Amgen Inc. (K) was the proprietor of a European patent relating to the production of erythropoietin (EPO) by recombinant DNA technology. EPO was a hormone made in the kidney which stimulated the production of red blood cells. Transkaryotic Therapies Inc (T), a US corporation, had also developed…
Improver Corp v Remington Consumer Products Ltd.[1] Facts: Plaintiff in this case were European patentees and inventor of a depilatory machine called “Epilady” which had a spring and, when rotated, plucked hairs from skin. Defendant produced a device called “Smooth and Silky” which plucked hairs using a rubber band. P alleged infringement. D denied infringement…