TRADEMARKS

Delhi High Court in a case[1] restrained a travel and tour service provider, Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. from using the registered Trademark ‘VOLVO’ as the part of their website, email address, trade name and domain names. Aktiebolaget Volvo stated that ‘VOLVO’ is its registered Trademark and any use of similar/identical mark by Mantis Technologies for travel and tour services will result in confusion amongst the general public. Delhi High Court in a case[2] restrained a face mask manufacturer from using ‘DPS’ Trademarks, ‘Delhi Public School’ and the logo of Delhi Public School/DPS on its facemask. The Delhi Public Society claimed that it is the registered Trademark and Copyright owner of artistic crest comprising of a hand holding a torch (mashaal) along with the school motto ‘Service Before Self’ and the words ‘Delhi Public School’ and any use of the said mark will deceive the students, parents and public at large. Bombay High Court in a case[3] granted interim relief to Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) for use of Trademark ‘Glow & Handsome’ by ordering Emami Limited to serve a written notice to HUL at least 7 days prior to initiating any legal proceedings in any court with respect to the ‘Glow & Handsome’ mark. The Court agreed with HUL’ claim that it was prior user and adopter of the mark ‘Glow & Handsome’, based on the facts that HUL had filed its Trademark application much before in time than Emami and HUL had begun their commercial advertisements related to the Trademark as well. 

 The Delhi High Court in a case 4 awarded Rs. 2,00,000 as costs and damages to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd for unauthorized use of its registered mark ‘Dr. Reddy’s by Rlife Span Diagnostics Private limited (RSDP).  RSDP accepted in the Court that it had been carrying on the business of offering diagnostic services, including pathology using ‘Dr. Reddy’s’ mark’ by using it to provide services and in its domain names. RSDP agreed before the Court, to cease use of Dr. Reddy’s mark and cost has been imposed on RSDP by the Court for taking unfair  Dr. Reddy’s mark to make unjust monetary gains. 

patents

The Delhi High Court restrained Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (Titan) [1] from using the patented drug of Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH (Bayer) named ‘Rivaroxaban’. Bayer is the manufacturer of Rivaroxaban and importing it in India via an India Company. Further, the drug was sold under a trademark named ‘XARELTO’. Bayer alleged that Titan was exporting Rivaroxaban from India under the brand name ‘MEZOSER-S’. Moreover, two Peruvian entities have commenced commercial dealing in Rivaroxaban in Peru. After examining the facts of the case, the High Court noted that the exports have been of finished Rivaroxaban products and that too in large commercial quantities, hence, Titan is not exempted under Patents Act in India and even the act of export would be considered as a use in India. The case is now listed for hearing on 14 September 2020.

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Sandvik and has restrained HK Engineering Works (HK) from manufacturing the patented product of Sandvik named Vertical Shaft Impact crusher (VSI). Previously, HK was found to be manufacturing VSI for Indian market without Sandvik’s permission. Pursuant to that, Sandvik filed a case in the Delhi High Court, however, both HK and Sandvik negotiated and presented an agreement before the court and settled the matter. The court also directed HK to compensate Sandvik for financial losses. 

 

 

Join our newsletter and get 20% discount
Promotion nulla vitae elit libero a pharetra augue