Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from 2015

Trap Purchases and Manufactured Jurisdiction in Indian IP Litigation

  Trap Purchases and Manufactured Jurisdiction in Indian IP Litigation A study of SML Ltd. v. M/s Happy Agro Chemicals and the doctrine of trap transactions Introduction In intellectual property disputes, few procedural issues matter as much as deciding where a case can be filed. The choice of court often shapes the entire journey of the case — from how quickly interim orders are granted, to the attitude of the local lawyers, to the practical burden placed on a defendant who must fight far from home. Because the forum is so important, plaintiffs sometimes try to influence it. The most common method is the trap purchase : a test buy arranged by the plaintiff, where an investigator pretends to be a regular customer, purchases the allegedly infringing product, and keeps the invoice and packaging. Later, this evidence is used not only to show infringement but — more controversially — to argue that the cause of action arose within the territory of the chosen court. Tra...
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction Under Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act: The Supreme Court's Ruling in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia

The Question Before the Court In Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia , the Supreme Court was called upon to settle a recurring and commercially significant question: where a plaintiff's principal place of business is at a location where the cause of action has also arisen, can the plaintiff nonetheless choose to sue at a different place — typically the location of a branch office — merely because it also carries on business there? The Court answered this decisively in the negative, holding that Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 must be construed purposively, and that a plaintiff residing or carrying on business at a place where the cause of action has also wholly or partly arisen must institute the suit at that place. The Statutory Scheme Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure ordinarily determines where a suit may be filed: under clauses (a) and (b), at a place where the defendant resides or carries on busin...
7 comments
Read more

Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: The IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007

Overview The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 empower Indian customs authorities to suspend the clearance of infringing goods, provided the rights holder has registered a notice to that effect. In practice, however, this mechanism remains significantly underused by registered proprietors and owners of intellectual property rights. Registering such a notice gives the IP owner a valuable layer of border protection against the import of infringing goods, particularly in relation to copyrights, trademarks, and designs. Patents are also covered under the Rules, but patent-related border enforcement is comparatively rare in practice, given the greater technical complexity and specialized expertise required to assess infringement at the border. Filing the Notice A notice of registration must be filed together with: a certified copy of the relevant IP right; an annexure setting out details of the right holder's rights and the grounds on which re...
Post a Comment
Read more

Delhi High Court Five-Judge Bench Overrules Mohan Lal and Upholds Maintainability of Composite Suits for Design Infringement and Passing Off

Summary A five-judge bench of the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment overruling the earlier three-judge bench decision in Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint & Hardwares, holding that plaintiffs can maintain composite suits combining design infringement and passing off claims against the same defendant. The Court clarified that when both causes of action arise from the same transaction and involve common questions of fact and law, they can be joined under Order II Rule 3 of the CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and promote judicial efficiency. Introduction On December 14, 2018, a  five-judge bench of the Delhi High Court  delivered a significant judgment in  Carlsberg Breweries v. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd. , addressing the critical question of whether design infringement and passing off claims can be combined in a single composite suit. This ruling  effectively overruled  the earlier three-judge full bench decision in  Mohan Lal v...
1 comment
Read more