ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Intellectual Property Law firm India

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...

The Trademark (Amendment) Rules, 2014 have been notified, revising the official government fees payable for trademark filings in India. With effect from August 1, 2014, the government fee for filing a trademark application has been increased from INR 3,500 to INR 4,000 per class—an increase of approximately 15%. A Pattern of Periodic Fee Revisions This is not the first such revision in recent years. The government fee had previously been increased in December 2010, when it rose from INR 2,500 to INR 3,500 per class. The latest amendment, therefore, marks the second increase within a four-year period, reflecting the Trademark Registry's ongoing efforts to align its fee structure with rising administrative and operational costs. Increase in Fee for Expedited Examination Alongside the increase in the standard filing fee, the government fee for expedited (express) examination of trademark applications has also been revised upward, from INR 17,500 to INR 20,000 per class. Expedited ...

  A Critical Analysis of Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. ( S. J. Kathawalla, J., Bombay High Court, Notice of Motion No. 2269 of 2012 in Suit No. 2012 of 2012, decided May 27, 2014) Core question: Can an infringement suit under Section 22 lie against a person who is himself a registered proprietor of a design? And, on the facts, was there infringement and passing off? Core statutory provisions: Sections 2(c), 6, 11, 19 and 22, Designs Act, 2000 I. Introduction The Designs Act, 2000 grants a registered proprietor a time-bound monopoly over the visual features of an article, but it does not say, in so many words, whether that monopoly can be enforced against another person who has himself managed to register a similar or identical design. Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. is the leading Bombay High Court authority answering this question, and it did so by adopting — and thereby entrenching — the position first taken by the Delhi High ...

Statutory Basis Section 33(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that where the proprietor of an earlier registered trademark has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years in the use of a later registered trademark, with knowledge of that use, the earlier proprietor loses the right either to seek invalidation of the later mark or to oppose its use in relation to the goods or services for which it has been so used — unless the later mark was registered in bad faith. The essential elements of the defense may be summarized as follows: (a) The later mark must be registered. (b) The earlier registered proprietor must have been aware of the use of the later registered mark for a continuous period of five years or more. (c) The subsequent applicant or registered proprietor must have used the mark continuously throughout that five-year period. (d) The later mark, once registered, cannot be cancelled unless its registration was applied for in bad faith. (e) Use of the later mar...