Addicted to Patent on Drugs

Imagine a vaccine which, when given to the Facebook addict, will make her brain immune to the emotional satisfaction (or dissatisfaction, as the case maybe) she gets by using Facebook, which will eventually result in lesser to negligible use of the networking site. Wouldn’t the world have been a better place!

Capsule of opium showing latex  exuding from incision

While this is mere imagination, researchers in Mexico’s National Institute of Psychiatry have come up with a vaccine for Heroin addiction. Heroin, one of the world’s most notorious narcotics, is an opiate drug which is extracted from Asian opium poppy seeds, which when injected intravenously, gives the user a surge of euphoria and clouded mental functioning. Following this initial euphoria, the user goes on an alternately wakeful and drowsy state.

Being a producer and transit route for illegal drugs, Mexico has been fighting the drug wars for years now. The heroin vaccine, which has been patented in the US by the Mexican researchers, works by stimulating the body's immune system to create antibodies that bind to the drug and prevent it from reaching the brain and producing a chemical high. The vaccine has been successfully tested on mice and now the tests would be conducted on humans. This breakthrough vaccine would be a blessing for serious heroin addicts, who have not had success with the other treatments for addiction.
Scientists over the world have been trying to develop anti-addiction vaccines for drugs such as cocaine, nicotine and methamphetamines, but none have been fully developed. This is the first time that researchers have come so close to achieve success on such a treatment, and have received funds from the US Institute of Health and the Mexican government.

Though there lies a long road ahead, this would prove to be a big step if the life-saving vaccine could reach the market and provide help to millions of drug addicts.

Author: Rajni Mishra
See also: Takeda files patent infringement suit against Dr. Reddy’s over Dexilant
Gilead and Roche sue Natco over U.S. Patent for Tamiflu

Basics of Specification Drafting- A Presentation by Somshekhar Ramkrishana

Basics of Specification Drafting

Publicity Rights in India (Part I)

The right of publicity refers to the right to prevent unauthorized commercial use of a person's persona. A person's persona includes his name, photograph, signature, voice or any other identity.   Publicity rights vest only in a celebrity or public figure. In other words, a person must be recognized by the public in order to possess the right of publicity.  The public must identify or associate an identity to a person. If such an association cannot be established, the right of publicity does not come into existence.

Use of a person's persona for commercial gain in an unauthorized manner amounts to violation of publicity rights of the person. Any person must therefore take permission of a celebrity for using his persona for commercial gain. Such authorization for commercial use forms one of the primary revenue sources of most celebrities. By virtue of their capability to influence minds of the public, celebrities endorse commercial products for a fee and generate substantial revenues.

Though celebrities have the right to prevent commercial exploitation of attributes of their personality, their right is limited by the right  of free speech and expression. In other words, a person will not be liable for publicity right violation if his use of a celebrity's persona amounts to free speech and expression, which includes news reporting, caricature, lampooning, parody, films, songs and so on.

Patent Co operation Treaty- A Presentation by Nishant Kewalramani

PATENT CO OPERATION TREATY

Tissue paper manufacturers' in tussle over trademark infringement

Image from here

A case has been decided by the High Court of Delhi relating to the ownership of the trademark “Premium Tissues”. The case, Premier Tissues India Ltd vs Rolia Tissues Industries & Anr, was a dispute between the parties for ownership of the trademark “Premium/ Premier” with regard to tissue papers. The parties sought for an injunction against each other for preventing the other from using the trademark. The court held that where it is established that the trademarks are infringing upon one another, the question as to the ownership of the mark can be answered based on the determination of the fact as to which of the parties was the prior user of the mark.
In this case the plaintiffs were manufacturing and selling tissue papers under the trademark “Premier” and the defendants were manufacturing and selling tissue papers under the trademark “Premium”. The plaintiff, who is based in Bangalore, is a considerably big company with an annual turnover of Rs.176,57,25,000 (One Hundred and Seventy Six Crores Fifty Seven Lac Twenty Five Thousand) last year and their clientele consists of reputed companies like Wipro, Infosys, Taj Group of Hotels, Meridien Group of Hotels, Manipal Hospitals, Apollo Hospitals etc. The defendants, who are based in Delhi are not such a big entity.

Both the parties in the case concurred on the fact that their respective marks were infringing upon each other. Hence, the court pronounced that it only had to decide who the prior user of the mark was. It held that the burden of proving prior use heavily rested on the person claiming it and failure to prove it would defeat the claim. In this case the evidence of prior use was in favour of the plaintiffs. The date of application and use claimed by the parties in the trade mark registry, advertisements in media like newspapers, magazines, articles in newspapers, documents relating to creation of a website in the name of trademark were considered as valid evidences. Also the fact that the defendants had agreed with the Trademark Registry to a disclaimer that they did not have exclusive right over the word “Premium” went against the defendants.

Author: Himendra

See also: A moment of ecstasy for DCM Shriram 

‘AQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS’ OF InfoSys TRADEMARK

Microsoft’s head-on collision with Motorola

Microsoft recently initiated a legal suit against Motorola for requesting unfair patent royalties involving video streaming. The software giant says Motorola is attempting to use essential patents "to kill video on the Web." Microsoft filed the complaint with the European Commission and alleges that Motorola has broken a promise to license patents on industry-standard technologies in a "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) way and adds that there's nothing FRANDly about Motorola's demands.

Image from here

Motorola demands that Microsoft uses its technology in Microsoft’s products such as Windows PCs, Xbox game console on which Motorola claims patents. For Microsoft to use 50 of Motorola's patents, it would have to pay 2.25% against the final price of products that use H.264 or $22.50 for a $1,000 laptop. By comparison, to use H.264, Microsoft also has to license 2,300 more patents from 29 other firms. H.264 is an industry standard for video compression, the process of converting digital video into a format that takes up less capacity when it is stored or transmitted. Video compression (or video coding) is an essential technology for applications such as digital television, DVD-Video, mobile TV, videoconferencing and internet video streaming.

We performed a search in Indian patent database to unveil the number of granted patents for Microsoft and Motorola in the video coding technology. Microsoft holds 2 patent grants and Motorola holds 3 patent grants in video coding.

Disclaimer:
The data provided is based on the search performed on Indian patent office's database by using specific search queries and may not be complete due to limitations in extent of data or search query.

Author: Raghu

See also: Android under Attack by Microsoft 

Microsoft objects to Apple's "App Store" trademark application

Open Source Software License- A Presentation at IIMB by Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala

Open Source Software License

Radio SiNApSE Updates

IP News Updates – 24 February 2012

*The Intellectual Property High Court in Japan has cautioned internet shopping mall operators to remove contents from the website that are protected under trademarks *Intel lost trade name Lawsuit against customs brokerage and cargo company named Intelport Services *Dr. Gulshan Narang, Disease Investigation Officer of the department of Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Hisar, has been been granted a Patent for his invention of a technique for ‘Urea Detection in Milk’ *The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) has been granted its ninth patent from the IPR office in Chennai, for the production process of “ready-to-cook mix and food from pearl millet” *Microsoft filed a complaint with European Union antitrust authorities accusing Google and Motorola Mobility of charging too much for use of its patents *A group of Mexican scientists are close to develop a vaccine that could reduce addiction to one of the world’s most notorious narcotics: heroin Newsreader: Rajni Mishra

To catch the IP wave, tune into www.radiosinapse.com

Philippines Expresses Dissent Over Inclusion of its Name in Piracy Watch List

Image from here

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) has expressed its dissent for adding its name in the Piracy Watch List, prepared by the office of USTR, under the Special 301 Process 2012. Every Year, the Office of United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts a review of the intellectual property protection under section 182 of The Trade Act 1974, popularly known as The Special 301Process. Accordingly, it analyzes the efforts of all the countries in giving protection to the intellectual property rights at international level.

The officials of the IPOPHL have stated, “Inspired by its modest gains in recent years in protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights (IPRs), the Philippines continued to intensify its holistic approach to fight counterfeiting and piracy. The protection of IPRs is and remains to be a major area of concern of the Philippine Government not just because the Special 301 Review process identifies countries where IPR infringement represents a barrier to trade, but more so because the war against piracy and counterfeiting is a war against poverty and unemployment of most Filipinos. It is also a campaign to boost the country’s competitiveness towards economic development”

While submitting its comments, IPOPHL has also mentioned the initiatives taken by the Philippines Government in the year 2011 to protect the intellectual property rights. A Summit on Philippine Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy was held in the state, last year, in which Philippine Action Plan on IPR protection and Enforcement (2012-2016) was submitted to the office of the President. The aim of the summit was to bring awareness to the common people about the fatal effects of counterfeiting and piracy on the global economy. Delegates from National Committee on Intellectual Property Rights (NCIPR), the World Intellectual Property Organization, the US State Department, the IPR Business Partnership, and the International Trademark Association had participated in this event. In addition to it, The Philippines Government had also organized seminars and training workshops for spreading knowledge and awareness on the laws related to copyright protection in the state.

Reportedly, the executive machinery as well as the judicial department of the state has made commendable efforts in enforcing the laws related to the intellectual property rights. Rate of seizure of counterfeited and pirated goods has shown an increase up to 58.33% in the year 2011. Presently, Philippines is having sixty- five commercial courts having exclusive jurisdiction over intellectual property matters, to ensure speedy trials.
IPOPHL has stated that the endless efforts of the Philippine Government to ensure better protection of the intellectual property rights cannot be overlooked.

Mentioning all these facts, IPOPHL has applied to USTR to remove its name from the Piracy Watch List

Reference taken from: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/02/19/12/ipophl-seeks-removal-us-piracy-watchlist 

 

Author: Neeru

See also: India and China amongst World ‘Priority Watch List’ countries

Back to nature- TNAU gets patent for 'ready- to- cook mix from pearl millet'

Image from here

The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) has been granted its ninth patent from the IPR office in Chennai, for the production process of “ready-to-cook mix and food from pearl millet”

Patent on this new technology which was granted on January 12, 2012 is claimed to be the first of its kind to get a patent grant, credit goes to R Kailappan, professor, department of food and agricultural process engineering, TNAU, who has developed this new technology.

Pearl millet (cumbu in Tamil and bajra in the North) is an important and healthy food grain which is rich in fat (5%), protein (11.8%) and minerals like calcium and iron and vitamins like thiamine, riboflavin and niacin.  However, because of the availability of rice in ready-to-cook form, the usage of pearl millets has got decreased. Moreover, the traditional method of preparing food from pearl millet involves a cumbersome process, which is another reason for decline in consumption of pearl millet.

The new patented technology by Prof. R. Kailappan has been developed to overcome the problems associated with the traditional process of preparing food using pearl millet.  Further, while explaining about this new technology Prof. Kailappan told, “The mix has to be mixed with water and cooked as per the instructions given on the pack. It can be cooked in a pressure cooker. There is no need to wash it or follow any of the pre-cooking steps”.  From the explanation of this technology by Prof. Kailappan, it could be predicted that this new process of preparing food using pearl millet will stick fairly close to the process of preparing food using rice.

Further, obtaining IPR is not new to the university (TNAU), which has applied for 31 patents in the field of agro-technologies and products, and has obtained nine patents so far.  Therefore, we can expect for some more inventive technologies from the university.  Furthermore, the university is keen on commercializing this patented technology on “ready to cook mix and food from pearl millet”.  Speaking on commercializing this new technology, R Viswanathan, professor and head, department of food and agricultural process engineering, TNAU, had told “Those interested in purchasing the rights for the technology for commercial use may contact: the director (Agri Business Development), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore - 641 003. Phone: 0422 – 6611377”.

Further, with extensive commercialization of this new technology, we can expect the age old food grain (pearl millet) to make a mark in the field of food technology again, thereby adding nutritious value to our meals.

Author: Nirmal

IPR Aspects of Herbal Drugs: A Presentation by Supriya Ramacha

IPR Aspects of Herbal Drugs

Indian Scientist Gets a Patent for 'Urea Detection in Milk'

Image from here

Dr. Gulshan Narang, Disease Investigation Officer of the department of Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Hisar, has been been granted a Patent for his invention of a technique for ‘Urea Detection in Milk’ . P K Kapoor, Head of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, College of Veterinary Sciences, Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Hisar informed that a patent has been granted by Government of India to the technology of ‘Urea Detection in Milk’.

 In the technique for detecting Urea content in Milk, a drop of reagent is put on filter paper and then a drop of milk is also put on the reagent, if milk contains urea, yellow colour ring develops within one minute around the milk. The Technique is acclaimed to be simple and cost-effective as well.

 A kit has been developed which even a lay man can find it easy to operate and the test can be performed by any lay person and even at the site of collection of milk. The kit is also currently available at “Kisan Sewa Kendra”, Hisar and “Krishi Vigyan Kendra”, Karnal.

Since urea is very hazardous for health, the invention is a blessing in any guise. It’s all the more significant during summer and festival seasons when the demand of milk goes up and there are more possibilities of contamination synthetic milk.


Author: C.Valli Shobhana

Cargo company wins battle to have Intel in its trade name

Intel Inc. has finally lost a trade name lawsuit filed against a similarly named cargo company Intelport Services, Inc in the US.

In a decision promulgated on 10^th FEB, 2012, the US Court of Appeal’s for Securities and Exchange Commission (Tenth Division) denied Intel’s petition to reverse the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) ruling declaring that customs brokerage and cargo company named Intelport Services, Inc trade name “Intelport” was not confusingly similar to the electronics company’s trade name “Intel”.

The case started in 2004, when Intel Inc. sent cease-and-desist letter demanding the customs brokerage company Intelport Services to change its name.

When Intelport did not respond, Intel filed a petition with the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC), which in turn, found no infringement, was committed.

According to the US SEC’s guidelines on corporate names: “If the proposed name contains a word similar to a word already used as part of the firm name or style of a registered company, the proposed name must contain two other words different from the name of the company already registered.”

But Intel Inc. argued that it had “acquired a prior right over the use of the name through trademark registration and that Intelport’s name was “confusingly similar.”

However, the US Court of Appeal’s for Securities and Exchange Commission decided, that Intel, which had the burden to prove that their exist similarity between the two names, had failed to substantiate its claims. Moreover, according to US Court of Appeal’s electronics company's tradename "Intel" was "not confusingly similar" to that of Intelport a cargo company.
Image from Wikipedia

Medical Imaging- A Patent Insight

Medical Imaging is in full flow and offers several advantages for clinicians to diagnose the patient’s health thoroughly.  Medical imaging is the technique and the process to create images of the human body or parts for clinical purposes and is often perceived to designate the set of techniques that noninvasively produce images of internal aspects  of the body. The imaging technologies involved in medical imaging are Radiography, Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Fiduciary Markers, Nuclear medicine, Photo acoustic imaging, Breast Thermography, Tomography and Ultrasound. These imaging technologies have their own way of acquiring images. This post will give  an insight into the Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Computed tomography (CT) or Computed axial tomography (CAT) is a technique used for medical imaging and industrial imaging methods employing tomography created by computer processing. CT generates multi-slice three-dimensional image of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a medical imaging technique used in radiology to visualize detailed internal structures. MRI makes use of the property of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to image nuclei of atoms inside the body. MRI machine uses a powerful magnetic field to align the magnetization of some atomic nuclei in the body, and radio frequency fields to systematically alter the alignment of this magnetization. This causes the nuclei to produce a rotating magnetic field detectable by the scanner and this information is recorded to construct an image of the scanned area of the body.

Some companies like General Electric (GE), Siemens, Philips and Toshiba involved in the manufacturing of CT and MRI machines. These companies have many patent filings in the Indian patent office related to the CT and MRI. We went one step further to unveil the technology that General Electric (GE) filed in the Indian Patent office.

The graph on the top shows  that GE filed patent applications related to image analysis that includes enhancing image intensity, analyzing image structure for reconstruction, 3D imaging and optimizing image noise. Some parts of applications filed is very pertinent to the CT and MRI device itself such as arrangement of X-ray collimator and detector to obtain the Region of Interest (ROI) of the patient. Also, some applications are related to arrangement of Radio Frequency (RF) coils in the MRI device. Other  applications are related to image segmentation and MRI artifacts reduction. An image artifact is a structure not normally present but visible as a result of a limitation or malfunction in the hardware or software of the MRI device, or in other cases a consequence of environmental influences as heat or humidity. Artifact affects the image quality and gives confusing artifactual appearances with pathology that may be misdiagnosed by the person. Apart from this, GE filed applications related to mammography, portable imaging system, mobile healthcare and ultrasound imaging.

General Electric has series of products in CT and MRI imaging that includes Discovery CT750 HD, LightSpeed VCT XTe, Optima CT 520, Optima CT 660, Brivo CT325 etc., for CT and Brivo* MR235, Brivo* MR355, Optima MR360 1.5T, Optima MR450W 1.5T, Discovery* MR750w 3.0T etc., for MRI scan respectively.

With the technology that the abovementioned companies built-in their products it becomes  easy for the physician to efficiently diagnose a patient’s health condition appropriately..
 

Disclaimer:

The data provided is based on the search performed on some patent databases including Indian patent office's database by using specific search queries and may not be complete due to limitations in extent of data or search query.

 

See also: Patents of L'Oréal: An Analysis  

Facebook Patents Portfolio- An insight 

Automobile Patent Numbers in India

Author: Raghu

SiNApSE IP Review (13.02.2012- 20.02.2012)

Patent Recap

Patents of L'Oréal: An Analysis The L'Oréal Group, is the world's largest cosmetics and Beauty Company. Concentrating on hair color, skin care, sun protection, make-up, perfumes and hair care, the company is active in the dermatological and pharmaceutical fields and is the largest nanotechnology patent-holder in the United States. L’oreal has about eighty Indian equivalents of Patents filed according to the data from the Indian IP Database. The above graph shows how many patents it has filed for in India in the last couple of decades. While the Patent filing has gone up significantly post 2005, highest of about twenty-eight in the year of 2008, the Company has also immersed itself in Patent wars with other Cosmetic giants over Patent infringement issues...

Copyright Recap

India and China amongst World ‘Priority Watch List’ countries The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), US copyright-based industries private sector coalition, has submitted recommendations to the US Trade Representative (USTR) in its annual ‘Special 301’ review. IIPA recommends that 10 countries be placed on the Priority Watch List in 2012: Argentina, Canada, Chile, China (306), Costa Rica, India, Indonesia (GSP), Russia, Thailand, and Ukraine (OCR) (GSP). The report calls for urgent government action to address these concerns that undermine US job and export growth...

Trademarks Recap

A moment of ecstasy for DCM Shriram It was indeed a joyous moment for DCM Shriram when  the Delhi high court while disposing off an interim application filed along with the appeal upheld the earlier orders passed by the single Bench in connection with the original suit. The legal proceedings started when DCM Shriram filed a suit for trademark infringement against Mukesh Khadaria before the single Bench Delhi High court in 2009 wherein the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of plaintiff’s, thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, employees, associates and assigns from manufacturing, distributing, selling, storing any produce under the name of “SHRIRAM CARTAP” which is deceptively similar to plaintiff’s trademark... Court cautions online mall operators The Intellectual Property High Court in Japan has cautioned internet shopping mall operators to remove contents from the website that are protected under trademarks. In a suit initiated by the company that owns the“ Chupa Chups” trademark, the company alleged that its trademarks were infringed by  Rakuten Inc., an online shopping mall operator. The website displayed logos that were similar to Chupa chups’s logo on products like mugs and hats... LIST OF INTERNATIONAL NON- PROPRIETARY NAMES The Controller General of Patent, Design and Trademarks (CGPDTM) by exercising there power conferred under Sec 13 of the Trademarks Act 1999, which deal with the prohibition of registration of names of chemical elements or international non-proprietary names, published the list of 8,151 International Non- proprietary names on 14th Feb,2012. The list of names is with nexus to the names, declared as International Non- proprietary names by the World Health organization... Blizzard- Valve tussle over DOTA likely to knock the doors of court The fan created word DOTA, highly popular for the war craft III games is boiling hot. Which giant company will get the trademark rights is as of now uncertain and  all eyes are on U.S courts who will ultimately decide the issue. The tussle started when very recently Valve attempted to register DOTA as its Trademark. DOTA is a highly popular mod of Warcraft III games developed by Blizzard and it stands for “Defence of The Ancients... “Who owns the goodwill in a mark?”- Coin flips in favour of the manufacturer A trademark associates considerable amount of goodwill with a product and hence businesses go to great extents to exploit this potential of a trademark and therefore, they strive hard to protect their trademarks. A recent instance where a seller of a product fought with the manufacturer of the product over the ownership of the trademark is the Trans Tyres India Pvt. Ltd. v. Double Coin Holdings Ltd. & Anr. case, which was decided by the Delhi High Court. The question of law decided in this case is -- between the seller of a product and the manufacturer of the same, who is the owner of the trademark and what circumstances and actions of either of them will contribute to the entitlement of ownership? It was held that the most important issue to be resolved is to find out to whom the goodwill in the trademark is connected?... Hollywood Celebrity Couple Trademarks Their Baby's Name, ' Blue Ivy' The Hollywood  superstar couple, Beyoncé and Jay-Z, have filed a trademark application to their month-old baby’s name,’Blue Ivy’, to stop the use of Blue Ivy's name by others. According to Reuters, the application to trademark Blue Ivy Carter's name, filed by BGK Trademark Holdings (Beyoncé's company) is currently pending but will likely be approved because, as the parents are legally authorized to trademark the names of their minor children...

General Recap

Beautiful Minds and Social Benefits Products merge business acumen and creative thought. Creativity is neither conceptually nor really separable  from its product manifestations.  It pervades all walks of life and knocks doors of every sector. Consumers and Businesses are  first level beneficiaries. Do creators occupy at least one rung of the benefit ladder?.. CGPDTM- INVITES APPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL IP AWARDS 2012 The objective and other details about the CGPDTM, National Intellectual Property Awards 2012 are as below:- 1. Objective The awards will be presented to the awardees at a conference in Delhi, organized by the Indian Intellectual Property Office (IPO) in collaboration with The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). The objective of awarding the National Intellectual Property (IP) Awards is to recognize and reward creators/innovators of IP who have contributed in harnessing the country’s intellectual capital and creating an eco-system that boosts creativity and innovation... Free Certificates for the Online Courses on Intellectual Property Intellepedia has launched a free certificate drive for the months of February-March 2012, where the registrants can avail certificates for the desired courses for free. Intellepedia and SiNApSE provide a number of courses on various aspects of IP and have witnessed a tremendous increase in the number of registrants benefiting from these courses. The courses are designed by leading IP practitioners, industry experts and professors, in a way that suits students, researchers, scientists as well as corporates...

Patent Practice in India: A Practical Approach- A presentation by Vikram Pratap Singh Thakur

Patent Practice in India - A practical approach @MSRIT, bangalore

See also: Patent Process- Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala,  Analysing Patentability of Inventions - A Presentation at NLSIU by Dr. Kalyan

Beautiful Minds and Social Benefits

 

Products merge business acumen and creative thought. Creativity is neither conceptually nor really separable  from its product manifestations.  It pervades all walks of life and knocks doors of every sector. Consumers and Businesses are  first level beneficiaries. Do creators occupy at least one rung of the benefit ladder?

Yes, they dream and continue to dream.  Beautiful minds continue to churn benefits with no recompense or expectation. Policies are policies, business is business and law is law. Everything is as usual and life goes on. Creators continue to create and consumers continue to enjoy their fruits. Are we missing something? Knock, Knock, Knock ...

Also see Survival of the Fittest, Origin of Species, the Missing Link, The IP Age and Apoptosis Now

Image from FreeDigitalPhotos

A moment of ecstasy for DCM Shriram

It was indeed a joyous moment for DCM Shriram when  the Delhi high court while disposing off an interim application filed along with the appeal upheld the earlier orders passed by the single Bench in connection with the original suit. The legal proceedings started when DCM Shriram filed a suit for trademark infringement against Mukesh Khadaria before the single Bench Delhi High court in 2009 wherein the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of plaintiff’s, thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, employees, associates and assigns from manufacturing, distributing, selling, storing any produce under the name of “SHRIRAM CARTAP” which is deceptively similar to plaintiff’s trademark. This order was appealed by the respondents before the Delhi High court in  Mukesh Khadaria vs DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited on 25 March, 2010. In the appeal the question before the High court was weather the order passed by the single judge in granting the interim injunction thereby restraining the Appellant’s from using the trademark SHRIRAM while marketing their plaster of Paris and  passing off their goods as those of the respondent was justified or not. The court answered in affirmative and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Apart from infringement, the issue of jurisdiction was also questioned in this case. The facts of the case are that DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited is the registered owner of the trademark Shriram and Shriram Nirman. DCM has been marketing a variety of products like fertilizers, chemicals, plastics, cement etc. under its registered trademark since decades. Apart from this DCM also deals in plaster of Paris under its brand name Shriram Nirman. The packages containing these goods bear a logo with blue, red and black stripes on a white background. According to DCM, the Appellant’s violated their trademark by marketing their plaster of Paris under the name and style of “Aggarwal Shriram” which is both visually and phonetically similar to DCM’s trademark. While upholding the infringement, the court laid down that, it is quite obvious from a visual comparison of the packaging of Appellants that they use “Shriram” which is the trademark of DCM. Though there are dissimilarities in the pictoral representation but the essence of the mark is Shriram which is the trademark of DCM. While discussing the concept of visual dissimilarity the court relied on some Supreme Court precedents like Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 Sc980 ,Heiz Italia Vs Dabur India Ltd.2007)6SCC1 and Cadilla Health care ltd. vs cedilla pharmaceuticals ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73 wherein the court had held that the test to determine the similarity is to see whether a particular mark has gained acceptability in the market so as to create confusion among the buyers as to the nature of the product. The courts emphasized on the decision of Supreme Court in cedilla Health care case were Supreme Court in clear terms had said that, “The overall effect of the packaging has to be seen.... [The] mere fact that the respondents have time and again made small changes in their packaging is an attempt to continue to mislead the purchaser and to make it more difficult for the appellants to protect their mark, which the record shows has acquired an enviable reputation in the market which is sought to be exploited by the respondent." In the light of these cases, the court held Mukesh Khadaria liable for infringement of DCM’s trademark.

The plaintiff DCM has submitted that the mark Shriram has been adopted by the plaintiff as mark of respect of their predecessor Sir Lala Shriram. The plaintiff further submitted that he is the owner of" Shriram" trademarks in class 5 group like Shriram Cartap 4G, Shriram Gold, Shriram Ace and many others. The plaintiff is the user of the said trademark since 1960. With efforts and hard work, Shriram has generated a good reputation and goodwill. The plaintiffs have invested crores of money for promoting their brand. The Plaintiff has alleged that defendants, by using similar trade mark for some of their products have sabotaged the reputation and goodwill of plaintiffs. However, the defendants in their written statement have denied all the accusations stating that their trademark is not similar to plaintiff’s trademark in terms of style, colour and packaging and hence there could be no infringement. The defendants also challenged the maintainability of the suit of jurisdictional grounds and happening of subsequent events which include the registration of defendant’s trademark in 2011. The Court stated that the defendants have not informed the Trademark Office regarding the pendency of the interim order. The court further held that there is clear violation of the provisions including Section 11 as the identical prior registered trade mark of the plaintiff was not cited as a conflicting mark. This was held to be contrary to rule Rule-37 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2002 which provides as a duty of the registrar to examine the application by causing search of the previously pending and registered.

The court laid down the following: “By ignoring the mandatory provisions of the Act and granting registration to the defendants, it is clear that it is done with the malafide intention, in order to defeat the orders passed by the Court. The party cannot get a registration done in its favour without informing the Trade marks office about the interim orders passed by the Court. On the question of Jurisdiction the court said that at this stage the question of jurisdiction cannot be sustained and is hence dismissed”.

All we can say is that the decision has further cleared the intricacies of trademark infringement and the parties seeking trademark registration must provide trademark registry with all the necessary information pertaining to the trademark so as to avoid unnecessary litigations.
 

Author: Noushin Aarif