Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments. Last week we published 3 posts on the E&Y’s report on music publishing in India, MHC’s judgement clarifying the jurisdiction of a High Court to hear writ petitions against orders of the Patent Office and the CGPDTM’s open house help desk portal. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below and let us know. This Weekly Review is authored by SpicyIP intern Kevin Preji. Kevin is a second-year law student at NLSIU Bangalore. His passion lies in understanding the intersection of economics and public health with intellectual property rights.
Highlights of the Week
E&Y Report on The Rise of Music Publishing India: Reflections from an IPR Perspective
Highlighting the frequently overlooked matter of the disorganized music sector and music publishing, E&Y released its ‘The Rise of Music Publishing in India’ report in December 2023. Tejaswini delves into and scrutinizes key bits from this report, especially analyzing the crucial call for an enhanced social security framework for gig workers.
On January 3, the Madras High Court passed an important decision clarifying the position on the jurisdiction of a court in hearing writ petitions against the Indian Patent Office’s order. Vishnoo assesses this decision in light of the Delhi High Court’s judgement in Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited & Anr v. The Controller of Patents.
Other Posts
SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM Launches Open House Helpdesk Portal
CGPDTM Launches Open House Helpdesk Portal! Read on below to learn more about the portal and our suggestions for fine-tuning it. Do you think this move will help in grievance redressal? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
Case Summaries
HMD Mobile India Private Limited vs Mr Rajan Aggarwal & Anr on 9 February, 2024 (Delhi HC)
The Plaintiff had filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for expunging the copyright registration against the Defendant. The Defendant had claimed that the idea of the ‘advertisement’ of the Plaintiff’s recent product launch has been copyrighted by the Defendant. In a brief order, the Court stated that expression rather than the idea can be copyrighted and the court did not pass any substantial orders as the reply of the respondents were still to be considered.
The Plaintiff filed a trademark infringement case against the Defendant for using deceptively similar mark to its “Rix” formative trademarks. While responding to the Plaintiff application for interim injunction, the counsel for the Defendants 2 and 3, who manufactured the drugs with the alleged marks, argued that they carried out the manufacturing on the premise that the Defendant 1 had the right over the trademark. There was no representation by the Defendant 1 and considering the three factors for an interim injunction and public interest, the Court granted an ex parte interim injunction.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd vs Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd & Anr on 6 February, 2024 (Delhi HC)
The Appellant filed an appeal against the Commercial Court ex parte ad interim injunction on its product, ‘OROGARD’ which has been alleged to have infringed the trade dress of the respondent 1’s (the plaintiff of the original suit) product, ‘ORASORE’. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent 1 had misrepresented the Commercial Court by showing an older expired packaging of its product to misled the court to grant the injunction. Additionally, they argued that respondent no. 1 circulated an advisory reflecting that the Appellant’s product has been ‘banned’ and thus was misrepresenting the impugned interim injunction order. The High Court held that this was an abuse of court’s process and allowed the Appellant to present an appropriate application before the Commercial Court setting out the grievances against the Respondent.
NHK Spring Co Ltd vs Controller Of Patents And Designs on 8 February, 2024 (Delhi HC)
An Appeal was filed against the order of the Controller of Patents for rejecting the patent application titled ‘Suspension and compression cold spring for suspension” on the ground of lack of inventive step. The Appellant argues that sufficient reasoning has not been given as to how the applied invention lacks an inventive step. The Court held that the assessment of the Assistant Controller does not disclose how the invention lacks inventive step and would fall within the prior art.
Man Truck Bus SE vs Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs on 9 February, 2024 (Delhi HC)
The Appellant filed an appeal against the denial of the Patent by the Controller of Patents and Design on the grounds of lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that firstly, the Controller did not give due consideration to the Appellant patents being granted across several other jurisdictions. Secondly, sufficient analysis has not been provided in relation to the prior art mentioned in the order of the controller. Lastly, the proceedings were conducted against the principles of natural justice because a certain addition was done in the list of prior arts without the Appellant being given a fair chance to be heard. The Court, on the aforementioned grounds, ordered the controller to reconsider the Patent application expeditiously.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. vs Dabur India Ltd. & Anr. on 9 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The key issue was whether the time limit for filing evidence in Opposition proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry, specifically the “two plus one month” aggregate three months’ period under the 2002 Rules, is mandatory or merely a guideline. The Court opined that the use of the term “one month aggregate” and the removal of discretion for the Registrar to direct otherwise in Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules indicate that the time limit is mandatory. The Court held that this interpretation will apply to the 2017 Rules as well, despite the removal of the one-month extension period, as the discretion of the Registrar remains absent therefrom.
Purshotam Keshwani & Ors vs Nishant Mitrasen Mahimtura & Ors on 8 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A alleging non-compliance of the court’s order dated 13th February 2019, which restrained the Defendants from using the ‘LIBAS’ trademark. The Defendants, in a pro tem arrangement by the Supreme Court, were allowed to use a modified logo. The Court clarifies that the order from February 2019 remains in operation, restricting Defendants from using ‘LIBAS’ in various forms (only modified logo is permitted). Parties are directed to discuss potential violations, and if no agreement is reached, the matter will be considered.
Arthrogen Gmbh vs Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks on 5 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The appeal, under Section 117A of the Patents Act, challenged the rejection of the patent application by Respondent No. 2. The Appellant, filed for a method of producing a protein-enriched blood serum. The rejection was based on non-patentability under Sections 3(j) and 3(i) of the Act. The impugned order concluded that the amended claims fell within the scope of Section 3(j) and (i), pertaining to plant or animal varieties and methods of treatment of human beings, respectively. The Court set aside the impugned order holding that the Controller should have granted an opportunity to respond to Section 3(j) objection and suggested reconsidering Section 3(i) objection in the light of the distinction between a method of treatment and a method of producing a novel substance.
Satish Chander Bhardwaj vs State Of Haryana on 12 February, 2024 (Punjab Haryana High Court)
The revision petition challenged a retrial order in a case involving the Petitioner accused of trademark violations in manufacturing and selling alleged counterfeit drugs. The Trial Court’s initial acquittal, citing procedural irregularities and insufficient evidence, was contested by the state. The Petitioner argued the retrial order lacks merit as the alleged order for clubbing cases is not on record. The High Court upholds the Trial Court’s acquittal, emphasizing deficiencies in evidence, witness cross-examination, and procedural violations. This decision sets aside the retrial order, specifically addressing the trademark-related allegations against the Petitioner.
Techpolymers Industria E Comercio Ltd vs The Deputy Controller Of Patents and Designs on 8 February, 2024 (Madras High Court)
The Appellant, seeking a patent for a thermoplastic polymer invention, appealed the rejection based on lack of inventive step and Section 59 of the Patents Act. The Court found the Controller failed to consider the appellant’s explanations regarding cited prior art, leading to the rejection on inventive step being reconsidered. Regarding Section 59, the Court clarified that the amendment did not exceed the original claim’s scope, emphasizing substance over language. The appeal was allowed.
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs on 9 February, 2024 (Madras High Court)
The Appellants sought a patent for a soluble foaming composition, claiming it to be protein-free. The Patent Office rejected the application citing a lack of inventive steps, treating certain claims as non-independent, and issues related to scientific principles and disclosure. The Court held that the Patent Controller did not adequately consider the appellants’ explanations and directed a reconsideration by another controller, expediting the process within four months to avoid the patent’s shelf life limitation. The appeal was allowed.
Tekelec vs The Controller Of Patents on 12 February 2024 (Madras High Court)
The Appellant’s patent application for a “performing Diameter overload control system” was rejected for lack of inventive step. The Court allowed the appeal, citing a lack of fair hearing, as the Examiner relied on prior art given up in a hearing notice. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by another Examiner.
Freebit AS vs Exotic Mile Private Limted on 31 January, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The Appellant, Freebit AS, filed a patent infringement suit against Exotic Mile Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of its “Improved Earpiece” patent. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the Appellant’s application for interim relief. The Court upheld the rejection, citing the Appellant’s suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, and acknowledging a credible challenge to the patent’s validity in various jurisdictions. The appeal was dismissed.
TTK Prestige Limited vs Baghla Sanitaryware Private Limited on 7 February, 2024 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC seeking to introduce additional documents in a trademark infringement case. The Court dismissed the application, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to deadlines under the Commercial Courts Act. The Plaintiff’s lack of diligence and failure to establish a reasonable cause for late filing were key factors in the decision.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
- SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
- PlatoData.Network Vertical Generative Ai. Empower Yourself. Access Here.
- PlatoAiStream. Web3 Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
- PlatoESG. Carbon, CleanTech, Energy, Environment, Solar, Waste Management. Access Here.
- PlatoHealth. Biotech and Clinical Trials Intelligence. Access Here.
- Source: https://spicyip.com/2024/02/spicyip-weekly-review-february-12-february-18.html
