Patents | Trademarks | IPR




 IPR (Intellectual Property Rights)

	Bhavnesh Mohanlal Amin and Anr. Vs. Nirma Chemicals Works Ltd. and Anr. (MANU/SC/1590/2005) Decided by: Supreme Court of India on 07.11.2005 Subject: Intellectual Property Rights- Trademark In an appeal challenging the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court upholding the order of the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad granting ad interim injunction restraining the appellants from using the mark "NIMA" was questioned. The Respondent claimed that they have statutory rights since they have registration of the trademarks under the name NIRMA and NIMA for their products. The appellants resisted the claim and stated that with respect to mark "NIMA" the appellants herein are a prior user for goods falling under Class 7 even though respondents got trademark “NIMA” registered with trademark registry. The Supreme Court held that it would not be proper to go into the legal position to be applied to the factual background in detail. There shall not be stay of operation of the High Court's order but without leave of the trial Court the respondents shall not initiate any action for user of the mark NIMA by the appellants till the disposal of the suit.
	Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Anr. Vs. M.S.S. Food Products (MANU/SC/0160/2005) Decided by: Supreme Court of India on 25.02.2005 Subject: Intellectual Property Rights- Trademark In a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondent restraining Appellant/Defendants from dealing in or selling Pan Masala, Gutka, Supari and Supari Mix under trademark ‘Manikchand’ as it was deceptively similar to mark “Malikchand” used by the respondent, interim injunction was granted by the trial court and the High Court. In an appeal by way of SLP before the Apex Court, it was held that the fact that both the party does not possess a registered trademark as on the date of the suit could not stand in the way of entertaining the Respondent’s claim and granting an injunction. The plaintiff showed prima facie that they were the prior users of the trademark “Malikchand” and that the balance of convenience was in favour of the grant of an interim injunction. Hence, the apex Court upheld the Trial Court’s verdict whereby holding them entitled to get perpetual injunction.
	Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Unitech Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Decided by: High Court of Delhi on 16.12.2005 Subject: Intellectual Property Rights- Trademark The Plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for permanent injunction, infringement of trade name, copyright, rendition of accounts in respect of registered trademark of plaintiff PHEXIN. The plaintiff claimed that defendants are selling products under the trademark FEXIM that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark PHEXIN, which is used for pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants are selling anti-biotic tablets with the trademark `FEXIM' with the packing material deceptively similarly to that of the plaintiff, whereby intending to not only to infringe the trademark but also to pass off the goods as that of the plaintiff as the two marks are also phonetically similar. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court decreed the suit of the Plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the trademark `FEXIM' or any trademark deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff `PHEXIN', any label/packaging material deceptively similar and containing the same pattern as that of the plaintiff.
	Smith Kline Beecham PLC. Vs. V. R. Bumtaria Decided by: High Court of Delhi on 16.12.2005 Subject: Intellectual Property Rights- Trademark The plaintiff by way of present suit prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the trademark, passing off, damages, delivery etc. in respect of its registered trademark ARIFLO, used in respect of the pharmaceutical preparations. The matter however ended by way of amicable settlement of disputes. The defendant agreed and accepted the plaintiffs’ exclusive right on the use of mark i.e. ARIFLO in India and abroad and further agreed to not to manufacture, purchase, sell, offer to sell, advertise, promote or otherwise deal in any manner whatsoever in pharmaceutical preparations under the mark ACIFLO or any other mark identical or similar to ARIFLO.
	Systopic Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Palsons Drugs and Chemicals Industries Decided by: High Court of Delhi on 06.12.2005 Subject: Intellectual Property Rights- Trademark The dispute between parties to the present case ended in a compromise, whereby the defendant acknowledging the plaintiff as the proprietor of the trademark GENTOPIC and undertaking to change its trademark GENTOP to such trademark which would not bear OP as suffix and agreeing to carry out such necessary changes as required in the labels, products, pamphlets and literatures etc. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court disposed of the matter in terms of compromise entered into between the parties.