Role Of Indian Judiciary In IPR Development And Adjudication

The principal function of Judiciary is to provide legal remedies against infringement of personal and property rights of persons.  Intellectual property is inchoate property when manifested in a legally recognizable way. Property right was, till the deletion of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, a fundamental right for citizens, but now under Article 300-A it is separately notified as a Constitutional right ensuring that no person can be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.

Article 300-A of the Constitution of India guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law.

This provision in reference to IP ensures the right of the inventor/author over his or her invention/work. The enforcement of contractual obligations under contracts dealing with IP tantamounts to creating the intellectual property. There are different forms of IP  protection available in India:
1. Patent
2. Designs
3. Trade mark and service mark
4. Copyright
5. Plant varieties and plant breeder’s rights (under consideration of Parliament)
6. Trade secrets (along with data protection)
7. Geographical indications

In the field of intellectual property, injunction is almost always prohibitory in nature. Till the infringement of a right is established at the trial, interlocutory injunction would constitute a temporary redress to be granted at the discretion of the court and has great deal of practical efficacy.
The interim period is sometimes very long because of the delays in the disposal of the trial. It would therefore be important for the courts to invariably impose a condition on the plaintiff to undertake to make good any damage suffered by any defendant from the injunction, should the plaintiff fail at the trial.
Thus it was already within the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts to make orders under the procedural rules contained in the Code like Anton Piller order or the Mareva injunction.

Case Reference

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. Manu Kosuri And Another, 2001 (58) DRJ 241

ISSUE:

Whether the mark/domain name is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark DR. REDDY’S for internet related services or any other business as may lead to dilution of the distinctiveness of the said trademark of the plaintiff?

Wipro Cyprus Private Limited v. Zeetel Electronics, 2010 (44) PTC 307

ISSUES
(1) Whether an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent from manufacturing,selling, advertising and offering for sale using the trade mark YARDLEY or any other similar sounding expression could be granted?
(2) Whether an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent from using the impugned name YARDLEY upon or in relation to any of their product including talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic and toiletry preparation or any other name/marks which may be  identical to or deceptively similar to the applicant corporate name, trade mark YARDLEY could be granted?

Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India,2005 PTC (30) 253

ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff has rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act,1957 in the impugned work although the copyright in the same has been vested to the defendant and whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s rights under Section 57 of the said Act?

Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 3540

ISSUE
Whether domain name can be said to be word or name capable of distinguishing subject of trade or service made available to potential users of internet and whether principles of trade mark law and in particular, those relating to passing off, apply?

Held, yes. The original role of a domain name was no doubt to provide an address for computers on the internet. But the internet has developed from a mere means of communication to a mode of carrying on commercial activity. With the increase of commercial activity on the internet, a  domain name can be said to be a word or name which is capable of distinguishing the subject of trade or service made available to potential users of the internet

Gramophone Co. Of India Ltd v. Mars Recording Pvt. Ltd. & Another 1996 PTC (16) 252

Supreme Court affirmed the decision given by the Trial Court in Bangalore and granted a temporary injunction in favor of the respondents. And further directed that the suit be tried and disposed of by the Trial Court within a period of six months.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation & Ors. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
CS(OS) 586/2013, CC No. 46/2013, I.A. Nos. 9827/2013, 8048/2014 and 13626/2015 : MANU/DE/2963/2015

Whether the Defendants have infringed the Patent of the Plaintiff?

Symed Labs Ltd. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
CS (OS) No. 678/2013: MANU/DE/0163/2015

Whether suit for ad interim injunction restraining Defendants, their agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or directly or indirectly dealing in product Linezolid manufactured in a manner so as to result in infringement of Plaintiff’s registered patent was liable to be granted to Plaintiff ?

Dr. Aloys Wobben and Anr. v. Yogesh Mehra and Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 6718 of 2013 : MANU/SC/0519/2014

Whether Defendant in an “infringement suit”, having raised a “counter-claim” seeking revocation of a patent, could file “revocation petition” before “Appellate Board” and that whether remedies, expressed in Section 64(1) of Patents Act, cannot be availed of by same person, simultaneously?

Kamal Trading Co. and Ors. v. Gillette U.K. Ltd.
1988 (8) PTC 1 (BOM)

whether the goodwill in the trade mark “7 O’CLOCK” stood extinguished because of nonavailability of blades with the mark in India after year 1958?

N.R. Dongre and Ors. v. Whirlpool Corpn. and Anr.
(1996)5SCC714

ISSUE
whether the exercise of discretion by the trial court is favour of the plaintiffs to grant the
interlocutory injunction is in accordance with the settled principles of law regulating grant of interlocutory injunctions or not and whether there is any cogent ground to interfere in this appeal with the exercise of discretion by the trial court?

Yahoo! Inc. v. Sanjay V. Shah and Ors.
2006 (32)PTC 263 (Del )

ISSUE
Whether the Trademark of the Plaintiff has been infringed?

Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Parag Sanghavi and
Ors.
2015(64)PTC546(Del)

ISSUE
Whether present suit filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered Trademarks, infringement of Copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up, etc. against Defendants is sustainable?