#delhicourt Archives - Page 12 of 15

18 Aug

The Designs Act of 2000 does not extend protection beyond what is required to create a mandatory incentive for design activity: Delhi High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #company, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #hero, #heromotors

Title: HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED Vs SHREE AMBA INDUSTRIES

Decided on: 16th August, 2023

+ CS(COMM) 1078/2018 & I.A. 11007/2018 (O-XXVI R-9 of CPC)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently addressed a case involving a trademark dispute between Mankind Pharma Limited and Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited. The key contention revolved around the use of the common suffix “KIND” in their respective trademarks. The Court’s decision emphasized the significance of maintaining clear distinction between pharmaceutical products to prevent confusion among healthcare professionals and consumers.

Facts

Mankind Pharma Limited, a prominent participant in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, adopted the trademark “MANKIND” as part of its trading style in 1986. The company incorporated the suffix “KIND” in the names of several pharmaceutical preparations it manufactured and sold. Mankind Pharma expressed concerns regarding Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited’s utilization of the mark “NOVAKIND” for its pharmaceutical products. Mankind Pharma contended that the inclusion of “KIND” in Novakind’s mark infringed upon its registered trademark. Mankind Pharma issued a cease-and-desist notice to Novakind, urging it to desist from using the contested mark.

Analysis and Held

In the matter, a Single Judge Bench presided over by Justice C. Hari Shankar handled the case. The Court acknowledged that while physicians and chemists might prefer Mankind Pharma’s products due to their efficacy, the shared “KIND” suffix could lead to confusion. The Court stressed that even the slightest possibility of confusion is unacceptable when it comes to medicines, especially prescription drugs.

The Court pointed out that the use of the “KIND” suffix is not exclusive to pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, individuals with average intelligence and imperfect memory could associate Novakind’s “NOVAKIND” product with the KIND family of marks owned by Mankind Pharma. This likelihood of association satisfied the legal requirement for infringement under Section 29(2)(b)10 of the Trade Marks Act. Both marks were found to be deceptively similar and used for identical goods, supporting the finding of trademark infringement.

The Court further emphasized that individuals with limited means, who rely on less expensive medical services, might be particularly prone to associating medicines with their manufacturers. Due to the varying effectiveness of the same drug produced by different companies, the Court highlighted the need for distinct trademarks to prevent confusion and potential health risks.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court upheld that the trademarks of Mankind Pharma and Novakind Bio Sciences were deceptively similar. The Court endorsed Mankind Pharma’s concerns regarding potential confusion among healthcare professionals and consumers, leading to its decision against Novakind’s use of the contested mark.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

18 Aug

Delhi High Court’s Jurisdictional Ruling: Venue vs Seat of Arbitration and Time Extension for Arbitral Proceedings

Prime Legal

Blog #ADR, #ambani, #arbitraion and conciliation, #company, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #reliance

Title: Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Decided on: 14th August, 2023

+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 161/2020 and IA No. 9377/2020

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently rendered a significant decision regarding the distinction between the ‘venue’ and ‘seat’ of arbitration, as well as the extension of time for completing arbitral proceedings. The case involved a petition seeking an extension of time for issuing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Facts

The petitioner, a participant in Rural Electrification works in Uttar Pradesh, initiated arbitration proceedings due to disputes arising from contracts. The General Conditions of Contract (GCC) mentioned that disputes would be resolved through arbitration, with Delhi having exclusive jurisdiction. Subsequently, the petitioner sought an extension for the Sole Arbitrator to issue the arbitral award.

Analysis

The central issue before the Court was the distinction between the ‘venue’ and ‘seat’ of arbitration and the significance of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The Court underscored that when an arbitration clause designates a specific ‘venue,’ it essentially anchors the arbitral proceedings to that location, making it the ‘seat’ of arbitration. Thus, the Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the designated ‘venue’ becomes the supervisory authority for the arbitral process, even if a general exclusive jurisdiction clause exists for a different court. The Court examined various judgments and legal precedents to establish this principle.

The Court highlighted the fact that the LOA’s ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ clause was general and did not specifically pertain to arbitration, while the GCC Clause 48.1.2 designating Delhi as the ‘venue’ of arbitration took precedence. This reinforced Delhi as the ‘seat’ of arbitration. The Court clarified that the Arbitration Act empowers courts to extend the Arbitrator’s mandate even after the award’s deadline, upon sufficient cause shown.

Held

The Court declared its territorial jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and the petition’s maintainability. It granted the petition, allowing an extension of one year from the date of the judgment for completing the arbitration proceedings and issuing the arbitral award. The Court emphasized that the Sole Arbitrator had not shown any lack of expedition in the proceedings.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling highlights the significance of accurately designating the ‘seat’ of arbitration based on the specified ‘venue’ and clarifies that exclusive jurisdiction clauses do not undermine the seat’s authority. The Court’s decision also underscores the flexibility of the Arbitration Act to grant extensions for arbitral proceedings.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view judgement

17 Aug

Section 5 Limitation Act| Court Must Not Discriminate Against Government Agencies, Government Has Special Obligation To Perform Duties: High Court of Delhi

Prime Legal

Blog #delay, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #dismissed, #health, #healthdepartment

Title: Department of Health v. Kamla Mehndiratta and Ors.
Ordered on: 4th August, 2023

+ CM APPL. Nos. 20019/2019 and 20017/2019 in W.P.(C) 3613/2004 & CM APPL. 20068/2022 & CM APPL. 20069/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently declined to condone an inordinate delay of 691 days in an application seeking restoration of a petition filed by a government agency. The Court emphasized that government agencies, despite facing bureaucratic delays, must provide valid reasons for such delays. The case raised questions about the admissibility of the application given the substantial delay and the requirement for sufficient cause to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Facts

The petitioner, a government agency, sought restoration of a petition that had been dismissed in default by the Labour Court. The petition had challenged an order of the Labour Court concerning the appointment and promotion of the respondent, who was initially appointed on a temporary basis and later worked as a regular staff member. The petitioner filed the restoration application after a delay of 691 days.

Analysis and Held

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, a Single Judge Bench, underscored the significance of providing sufficient cause to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. While acknowledging that government agencies may encounter procedural delays, the Court emphasized that unexplained delays of such magnitude could set a precedent for more similar applications.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s argument, which cited frequent changes in panel advocates and the resulting delay in restoration application filing. However, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s failure to act in a timely manner despite ample resources at its disposal.

Justice Singh highlighted the special obligation of government agencies to perform duties diligently and committedly. Condonation of delay should be an exception and not a convenience for government departments. The Court emphasized that the phrase “sufficient cause” is pivotal in seeking extension of the prescribed period, requiring the petitioner to justify the delay convincingly.

In light of these considerations, the Delhi High Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the court that there existed a sufficient cause justifying the delay of 691 days in filing the application seeking restoration. Consequently, the Court declined to condone the delay and upheld the dismissal of the application for restoration.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view order

17 Aug

Trademark Dispute: Physicians Or Chemists Could Be Confused Due To Common Suffix- Delhi High Court In ‘Mankind’ V. ‘Novakind’ Case

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #parma, #parmacompany, #trademark

Title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited
Ordered on: 7th August, 2023

+ CS(COMM) 188/2021, I.A. 5700/2021 & I.A. 3248/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently addressed a trademark dispute between Mankind Pharma Limited and Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited. The case centered around the use of the common suffix “KIND” in their respective trademarks. The Court emphasized the need for clear distinction between pharmaceutical products to avoid confusion among healthcare professionals and consumers.

Facts

Mankind Pharma Limited, a significant player in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, adopted the trademark “MANKIND” as part of its trading style in 1986. The company used the suffix “KIND” in the names of various pharmaceutical preparations it manufactured and sold. Mankind Pharma raised concerns over Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited’s use of the mark “NOVAKIND” for its pharmaceutical products. Mankind Pharma believed that the inclusion of “KIND” in Novakind’s mark infringed upon its registered trademark. Mankind Pharma issued a cease-and-desist notice to Novakind, urging it to stop using the contested mark.

Analysis and Held

In this case, a Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar presided over the matter. The Court acknowledged that while physicians and chemists might prefer Mankind Pharma’s products due to their efficacy, the common “KIND” suffix could lead to confusion. The Court highlighted that even the slightest possibility of confusion is unacceptable when it comes to medicines, especially prescription drugs.

The Court noted that the use of the “KIND” suffix is not unique to pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, customers with average intelligence and imperfect recollection could associate Novakind’s “NOVAKIND” product with the KIND family of marks owned by Mankind Pharma. This likelihood of association satisfied the legal requirement for infringement under Section 29(2)(b)10 of the Trade Marks Act. Both marks were found to be deceptively similar and used for identical goods, supporting the finding of trademark infringement.

The Court also underscored that lower-income individuals who rely on less expensive medical services might be susceptible to associating medicines with their manufacturers. Given the varying efficacy of the same drug produced by different companies, the Court emphasized the importance of distinct trademarks to prevent confusion and potential health risks.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court ruled that the trademarks of Mankind Pharma and Novakind Bio Sciences were deceptively similar. The Court upheld Mankind Pharma’s concerns regarding potential confusion among healthcare professionals and consumers, leading to its holding against Novakind’s use of the contested mark.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view judgement

16 Aug

The Delhi High Court has granted permission for a US citizen convicted under POTA to go to Chicago due to his elderly father’s illness.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #parents, #permissiongranted, #uscitizan

Title: Mohd. Yasin Patel Alias Falahi v. State

Decided on: 26th July, 2023

+ CRL.A. 585/2003

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT & HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently granted permission to an American citizen who was previously convicted under Section 20 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to travel to Chicago, U.S.A. for a period of four weeks. The applicant’s request was based on the grounds that his elderly father was suffering from ailments, and he wanted to visit him. The Court allowed the travel subject to certain conditions and surety bonds.

Facts

The appellant had been convicted for offenses under POTA and IPC and was sentenced to five years of imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 25,000. The sentence, however, had been suspended. The appellant was found guilty of pasting a poster and propagating issues mentioned on the poster, which advocated for the establishment of “KHILAFAH STUDENTS ISLAMIC MOVEMENT OF INDIA” and the destruction of nationalism.

The appellant approached the High Court seeking permission to travel to Chicago for four weeks to visit his 89-year-old father, who was an American citizen and was suffering from various old-age ailments. The appellant’s mother, also an American citizen, was 86 years old. Due to his father’s deteriorating condition, he sought permission to visit him for a limited period.

Analysis

The High Court considered the submissions made by the appellant’s counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The prosecutor suggested that certain conditions be imposed on the appellant to ensure that he complies with the granted permission. The Court found merit in the appellant’s application and decided to allow the travel subject to certain conditions.

Held

The Delhi High Court granted permission to the appellant to travel to Chicago, U.S.A. for four weeks to visit his ailing father. However, the Court imposed certain conditions for the appellant’s return to India. He was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and his wife, two sons, and one daughter were also required to furnish surety bonds of the same amount each with the Register General of the Court. The Court made it clear that if the appellant does not return within the stipulated time, the surety bonds would be forfeited, and a Look-Out Circular (LOC) would be issued against his family members.

The High Court directed the prosecution to release the appellant’s passport within two days and instructed him to book his ticket to Chicago within one week. Being an American citizen, the appellant was further directed to apply for a visa for his return to India. He was required to submit his itinerary, address, and phone number in Chicago to the concerned Police Station/Investigating Agency through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The Court disposed of the application in light of these directions and conditions.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15