Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Bombay High Court Affirms Trademark Suit Can Bypass Pre-Institution Mediation, Highlights Intellectual Property Urgency

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Urgent interim relief necessary in intellectual property disputes,” rules Justice Manish Pitale in Chemco Plast vs. Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd.

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an application seeking rejection of a trademark infringement plaint for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Justice Manish Pitale, delivering the judgment on June 10, 2024, held that the plaintiff, Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd., adequately demonstrated the need for urgent interim relief, justifying the bypass of pre-institution mediation.

Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. Filed a commercial IP suit against Chemco Plast, alleging trademark infringement and passing off its registered trademark “CHEMCO.” The plaintiff sought permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendant. Chemco Plast responded by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing for the rejection of the plaint due to non-compliance with the pre-institution mediation mandate.

The defendant contended that the plaintiff failed to adhere to Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre-institution mediation unless urgent interim relief is contemplated. They argued that the plaintiff, having delayed the suit since the cause of action in 2015, had no grounds for urgent relief.

Justice Manish Pitale emphasized, “The question of urgent interim relief must be assessed holistically from the plaintiff’s standpoint based on the plaint and accompanying documents.” He further noted that the nature of intellectual property disputes often involves protecting consumer interests and preventing market confusion.

The court referenced significant judgments, including the Supreme Court’s decisions in Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited and Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, which highlighted the mandatory nature of pre-institution mediation but allowed exceptions where urgent relief is genuinely contemplated. Justice Pitale remarked, “In cases concerning intellectual property rights, the cause of action arises with each instance of infringement, underscoring the continuous need for urgent relief.”

Justice Pitale underscored, “The facts and circumstances must be considered holistically. Non-grant of interim relief at the ad-interim stage does not justify the dismissal of the commercial suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code.” He added, “Consumers are likely to be duped if marks are misused, necessitating immediate judicial intervention.”

The court’s decision reinforces the principle that in intellectual property disputes, the urgency of interim relief can justify bypassing pre-institution mediation. By dismissing the defendant’s application, the judgment underlines the judiciary’s commitment to protecting proprietary rights and preventing consumer confusion. This ruling is expected to influence future cases, reinforcing the need for swift judicial action in similar trademark infringement disputes.

 

Date of Decision: June 10, 2024

Chemco Plast vs. Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Similar News