Feb 22

RKD NewsNet February 2022

From the desk of Dr. Mohan Dewan | Assisted by: Adv. Shubham Borkar & Adv. Arjun Pradhan

General News

  • The Texture of Food
  • International News

    The Texture of Food

    1 Know The Real India: The Indian Flag
    2 RKD News: R K Dewan & Co. successfully restrains the infringers on behalf of Aztec Secret Health & Beauty Ltd.
    3 Celebrations: Dr Mohan Dewan completes 50 Years (1973-2023) of Advocacy R K Dewan & Co. at Restart Solar Energy India Conference 2023
    4 DIIPR News
    5 Spotlight- Naming Blunders
    6 Analysis-Demystification of a
    ‘product-by-process’ claim
    7 Thread Bare - Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. successfully prevents its trademark “GLUCO” from infringement
    8 Snips and Specs
    Cover Story
    Know The Real India: The Indian National Flag
    Bharatvarsha has always been connected with flags. Since ancient times, Flags have continued to serve as symbols of honour, valour, sacrifice and Dharma. In the recent times, flags have also denoted regions and patriotism.
    The national flag of Bharat, in pursuance of the same has been used to denote various versions of our Country’s struggle for ndependence. The journey of the National Flag of Bharat is deeply intertwined with the Indian ndependence ovement and the relentless efforts
    9 RKDecodes- Decoding Delicious 10 Delicacies - Bisi Bele Hulliyanna
    10 Perplex
    of the visionary leaders who fought for itsindependence. Let us delve into theorigins of our National Flag, and exploreits evolution as well the thoughts behindits design.

    During the initial stages of the freedomstruggle, the need for a unifying symbolbecame evident. In 1904, the first idea ofhaving a National Flag was put forwardby Sister Nivedita, who was a disciple ofSwami Vivekananda. She chose red andyellow colours, to represent victory andstrength for the design of the flag. It hadthe phrase 'Vande Mataram' written on itin Bengali along with an emblem ofVajra, which is the weapon of Lord Indrato denote power.

    In 1906, Kolkata witnessed anothervariant of our National flag. This variantwas the first to introduce the idea of atricolour. The flag had three horizontalstripes in the colours namely; blue,yellow and red. On the top, there were 8stars of different forms aligned in astraight line which were symbolic of the8 provinces of Bharat under the BritishRule. The words ‘Vande Mataram’ wasprinted on the yellow section, and a sun,crescent moon with a star were inscribedon the red stripe at the bottom.
    In the same year, another flag wasunfurled, with horizontal stripes oforange, yellow, and green. This came tobe known as the 'Calcutta flag' or the'Lotus flag,' because it included eightlotuses on the orange strip. This Flag isbelieved to be created by SachindraPrasad Bose and Sukumar Mitra. It wasunfurled on August 7, 1906, at ParseeBagan in the erstwhile Calcutta (Kolkata).

    A year later, Madam Bhikaji Cama, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar VeerSavarkar), and Shyamji Krishna Varmawere instrumental in the creation of another variant of the tricoloured flag. This flag was hoisted on
    August 22, 1907, at Stuttgart, Germany. The flag had threecoloured stripes: saffron at the top, yellow in the centre, and green at the bottom.

    This was the first flag tofeature the Saffroncolour.

    A decade after, Hem Chandra Dascreated a new flag for Bharat, which wasdesigned and hoisted by two of our mostrevered leaders of those times, BalGangadhar Tilak and and Mrs. AnneBesant in the year 1917. This flag featuredseven stars of the Saptarishi constellationpattern on alternate green and redstripes and had the Union jack at its topleft, a crescent moon, and a star.

    n 1916, Pingali Venkayya, a writer and geophysicist, developed a flag to unitethe nation. When he approached Mahatma Gandhi for his approval, he was advised to include a 'charkha' in the flag to represent the economic revival of Bharat. Mahatma Gandhi unfurled this flag in 1921 which was white at the top, green at the middle, and red at the bottom. An image of the 'charkha' was painted over the three stripes to represent the unity of all communities.

    However, this flag drew criticism, as a majority of people expressed a discontent with regards to the design of the National Flag. Consequently, the original
    placement of the colours of this flag were changed to saffron being at the top, white in the middle, and green at the bottom, with a white stripe with a charkha image in the centre. It was authorised in the year 1931.

    This Flag was hoisted by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in the year 1943. It was hoisted as the National Flag of Bharat / Hindostan for the first time at the Gymkhana Ground (now Netaji Stadium) in Port Blair, Andaman Island. He being the first Bharatiya / Hindostani to reclaima territory under British rule in Bharat, proclaimed Andaman and Nicobar Islands, as the first area of Bharat to be independent from colonial rule. This was an important event as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands housed a jail where patriots were exiled as punishment for voicing against the British raj.
    1947 FLAG OF INDIA
    In 1947, when Lord Mountbatten announced India to be an Independent Nation; an ad-hoc flag committee led by Dr. Rajendra Prasad was formed to create a flag for a free India which was resonant of all the communities. With the approval from Mahatma Gandhi, it was decided that an altered Pingley Venkayya's flag should be adopted. The charkha was replaced by the Ashok Chakra (Ashoka's Sarnath Pillar Wheel) as the National Emblem and the tricolor flag, was officially adopted as the National Flag of India on July 22, 1947.

    It is important for us to understand that each colour in the Indian National Flag holds a deep symbolism and reflects the values and aspirations of the nation asprovided below:
    • Saffron: The top most band of saffron signifies courage, sacrifice, and the spirit of renunciation. It represents the valour and sacrifice of the country's freedom fighters who selflessly fought for independence.
    • White: The middle white band represents purity, truth, and peace.
    • Green: The lower most green band signifies fertility, growth, andauspiciousness. It represents India's agricultural heritage, as well as its commitment to environmental harmony and sustainable development.
    • Chakra: The Chakra represents constant movement and progress.
    How to display the National Flag and How Not to
    The display of the National Flag is governed by the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (No. 69 of 1971).
    A special Flag Code of India, 2002 was formulated to bring together all such laws, conventions, practices and instructions for the guidance and benefit of all concerned.

    Recently, the Government of India launched the ‘Har Ghar Tiranga’ campaign, encouraging all the citizens to hoist the Indian National Flag in every home. Hence the Ministry of Home Affairs amended the Flag Code of India 2002 allowing an unrestricted display of the Tricolour as long as the honour and dignity of the flag were being respected. The Flag code of India enumerates all do’s and don’ts in respect of display of National flag and those conditions must be adhered to.

    The National Flag cannot be used for any commercial
    purposes such as a Trademark / brand name in violation of the Emblem and Names (Prevention ofImproper Use) Act, 1950.

    The Indian National Flag, as it stands today with its vibrant tricolour, is a powerful emblem of India's hard-fought independence and its unity amidst diversity and national identity. Withevery wave, it serves as a powerful reminder of the country's struggle for freedom and its unity in diversity. It is a manifestation of the courage, sacrifice, and aspirations of countless individuals who contributed to the nation's freedoms truggle. Through its iconic tricolor and symbolic elements, the flag continues to inspire and instil a sense of pride in every Indian. It serves as a constant reminder of the values that India upholds-courage, truth, peace, and progress.

    As the flag soars high, it represents the collective dreams and aspirations of a nation that strives for a brighter future while honouring its rich history and cultural heritage.
    RKD News
    R K Dewan & Co. successfully restrains the infringers on behalf of Aztec Secret Health & Beauty Ltd.
    Recently, Aztec Secret Health & Beauty Ltd. (Aztec Secret) represented by R K Dewan & Co., was successful in obtaining an ex parte ad interim injunction in a suit filed before Delhi High Court, against the infringers namely, Mohammad Akbar U Maniyar & others (Defendants) for infringing its copyright in original artistic work and passing-off of its trade marks.

    Aztec Secret is a company incorporated under the laws of United States of America and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of healing clay, facial cleansers, facial beauty masks, essential oils, apple cider vinegar, etc. particularly used for skin care
    and rejuvenation under its trademarks AZTEC SECRET since 1986.

    Aztec Secret has been actively using its trademarks / trade dress / trade name / artistic work "AZTEC SECRET" / for its products since the year 2013 in India. Aztec Secret has also been selling, advertising its products through its own website i.e., www.aztecsecret.com and through various e-commerce websites such as Amazon, Go India Organics, Tata1mg etc. The goodwill and reputation ofits products is acknowledged by several popular magazines including Vogue, Business Insider, Valley, Allure, New YorkPost, Cosmopolitan, etc.
    Aztec Secret came to know that, the Defendants were violating their statutory and common law rights by infringing their original artistic work and were also passing-off their goods by adopting identical trademarks / trade dress “AZTEC SECRET" & domain name www.aztecsecret.in.

    R K Dewan & Co. on behalf of Aztec Secret approached the Delhi High Court, restraining the Copyright and Trademark Infringement as well as Passing off. TheHon’ble Court vide its Order granted anex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the Defendants and held that the marks “AZTEC SECRET", were identical to
    the Aztec Secret’s registered copyright in original artistic work and its registered trademarks “AZTEC SECRET".

    The Court was pleased to appoint a two Local Commissioners to inspect, sign and take charge of the account ledgers / cash books / accounts books, manufacture and / or import records pertaining to the sale etc. of the products bearing the infringing marks.

    Thereafter, the R K Dewan & Co. team assisted the Local Commissioner to investigate and conduct a smooth and successful raid at the premises of the Defendants in Karnataka & Delhi. The Defendants also undertook to provide the Statement of Accounts, books of accounts, invoices of the infringing trademark “Aztec Secret” along with the sample of label bearing the infringing marks.

    This case reflects R K Dewan’s expertise in taking swift and well-strategized actions which lead to timely and effective results.
    Dr Mohan Dewan completes 50 Years (1973-2023) of Advocacy

    R K Dewan & Co. proudly shares that on this 3rd August, 2023, Dr Mohan Dewan has achieved the milestone of completing 50 Years (1973-2023) of Advocacy!

    A stalwart of the Indian IP arena with over 50 years of experience in intellectual property practice, both prosecution and litigation, Dr. Dewan serves over 6000 clients in India & internationally. An acknowledged expert in patent practice, he has drafted over 8000 patent specifications in all technology areas, a majority of which have been granted. Dr. Dewan also has litigation practice in all levels of courts in India, both civil and criminal. An INTA volunteer for more than 15 years, Dr. Dewan has been a top contributor; authoring a remarkable number of Law & Practice updates covering Indian case laws, for the INTA Bulletin.

    He is frequently invited to conduct seminars, workshops, and training programs for students, executives, IP professionals and IP Office examiners etc.

    We at R K Dewan & Co. honour your remarkable success and dedication and are blessed have you as our guiding force.
    R K Dewan & Co. at Restart Solar Energy India Conference 2023

    R K Dewan & Co. is delighted to share that our firm was invited to speak at the prestigious Renewable Energy Conference organized by Restart Solar India, held at CIDCO Exhibition & Convention Centre, Navi Mumbai. The conference was held on 4th August, 2023 and was attended by a number of companies associated with the business of renewable energy in India.

    Dr. R. K. Sapru (Senior Patent Consultant), on behalf of our firm, spoke on Intellectual property and renewable energy. At the outset, the Dr. Sapru spoke about intellectual property, its types and the importance of registering intellectual property. It was brought out that the world, including India, is moving away from research and development in fossil fuels and is increasingly innovating in there newable energy. Greater focus on renewable energy was substantiated with statistics drawing a comparison of the number of patent applications filed for the fossil fuels and for the renewable energy in the last 5 years. He further elucidated on the number of patent applications filed for renewable energy far outweighed the number of patent applications filed for the fossil fuels in India by conducting statistical exercise giving a break-up of the %age of patent applications filed in the solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric energy and the applications filed in the conventional energy.

    The audience was also apprised that lenders are more inclined to lend for green energy than lending for fossil fuel energy production. It was shared that the Govt. of India has made commitment to generate 50 GW of renewable energy each year for the next 5 years and that there is a huge opportunity for innovation in the renewable energy in India considering limited resources of fossil fuels, commitment for meeting net-zerotarget, climate change and the necessity of reduction of import of the fossil fuels.

    R K Dewan & Co. is thankful to Restart Solar for inviting R K Dewan and Company to speak at the Renewable Energy Conference and looks forward to many more such events in the future for a better IPR Aware world and society.
    DIIPR News
    Greetings to our IP family!
    We Dewan Institute of Intellectual Property Rights (DIIPR), offer specialized courses which are flexible, modular and frequently updated to provide comprehensive training and deliver practical knowledge, which can be immediately applied by the aspirants in the field of Intellectual Property Rights.
    Good news! As part of our ongoing efforts to enhance communication and engagement, we are pleased to expand our digital footprint and announce the official launch of our brand-new Facebook and Instagram pages!

    Connect with us on Facebook/Meta:
    https://www.facebook.com/ permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0mzYoq DKmsNb7nNEy2wVg6TnJ9vCWto3zS YsEws7SkRyjHfpMr9xBec5rwPx2s3R Ml&id=100095251591238
    Follow us on Instagram:

    We cordially invite each and every oneof you to join us on this digital journey.Please click the "Follow" button on bothour Facebook and Instagram pages tostay connected and engaged

    Thank you for being an integralpart of our journey. We lookforward to engaging with you onour new social media platforms!
    Naming Blunders
    A Misnomer refers to an inappropriate designation for a person, place or an object. It arises primarily due to two reasons, either due to the fact that a particular thing was named before its true nature was known or an earlier form of a certain something has been changed and its name is unsuitable to that. However, a misnomer cannot be mistaken for a popular misconception but it could definitely be described as aword that someone uses misleadingly.

    Food misnomers are a common phenomenon involving food facts, food assumptions, and food myths. This article briefly discusses some general misnomers that are well known.

    White Chocolate
    There is no denying the fact that white chocolate is popular and liked as well as relished universally. The core constituents of white chocolate include sugar, cocoa butter, milk products, vanilla, and lecithin.

    Chocolate liquor, the main element that is used in chocolates, is derived from the nibs inside cocoa beans that have been ground, dried or roasted. This element is missing in white chocolate and is replaced by milk solids. During the process of manufacturing of chocolate, the cocoa beans are separated from the fatty content - that is, into white and dark chocolate. However, while making white chocolate, no cocoa mass is added back and cocoa butter is the only ingredient used alongwith vanilla flavoring. Therefore white chocolate cannot be called ‘Chocolate’.
    Indian ink
    Indian ink is an essential medium that’s been used by artists since ancient times. Its composition includes carbon black (traditionally soot and ash from all sorts of burnt things like bones and tar), mixed with a binder which is usually made up of water or a gum or resin-based solution. The reason as to why this is a misnomer is because this ink originated in China but when it was imported to Europe via India it was termed as “Indian ink”. It is mainly used in sketch books, mixed media work or for painting. This ink can be applied via pens and brushes but necessary precaution has to be taken by the user as once it has dried up, it is impermeable.
    German chocolate cake
    Without a doubt, cakes are a must inevery occasion - be it birthday parties or wedding anniversaries. This delicacy comprises several chocolate layers which are coated with coconut and pecans. Having originated in the United States back in the 19th century, its name is a misnomer due to a mere punctuation error.

    Sam German invented the concept of a chocolate bar to be used for baking. In his honour, this product was named as Baker’s German Sweet Chocolate. However, the double possessives are tough to pronounce due to which most publishers didn’t include the “s” when they wrote about it. This is how the name came into beingand eventually became a classic American dessert.
    French Fries
    An ideal blend of salt and crisp, French fries are well liked by people all over the world. Their affordability due to the cheap and easy to grow ingredient i.e., the potato adds to its popularity. This famous snack has roots in Belgium, a fact which many are unaware of. This misnomer stems from a geographical error that took place during World War I. In actuality the American soldiers who were situated in Belgium accidentally believed that they were in France, the reason being that French is spoken in certain parts of Belgium, where they were stationed. These soldiers christened the potato fries as “French Fries”.

    The Bombay Duck
    Bombay duck which is also famously called as bombil, bummalo, boomla is actually a fish. According to the BBC, there are a few theories as to how the fish got its moniker, the most popular of which is that the name came from the British mail trains that huffed

    odoriferous orders of dried fish from the city to the interiors of India. These wagonloads became known as ‘Bombay Dak.’ (The worddak means ‘mail.’).

    Bombay duck is preferred to be eaten either fresh or traditionally dried in the sun in order to prevent its soft flesh from spoiling. However, in India a common practice is drying the Bombay duck in the sun instead of freezing and canning. This led the European Commission to ban the import of Bombay duck from India in 1977 fearing bacterial contamination.

    While the Indian High Commission launched a “Save Bombay Duck”campaign and urged the European Commission to adjust the regulations for dried bombil, David Delaney, a British businessman and a lover of Bombay duck, studied the packaging in Mumbai and fought against the lack of “sanitary evidence” there by having the ban overturned. Hence Bombay duck is sun dried in India.
    Demystification of a 'product- by-process' claim
    Vifor International Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Vifor) is a pharmaceutical company of Switzerland, incorporated in 1991. The company was granted a patent in India, patent no. IN 221536 titled ‘Water Soluble Iron Carbohydrate Complex and a process for producing Water Soluble Iron Carbohydrate Complex’, (hereinafter referred to as “IN’536”).

    The granted patent related to Ferric Carboxymaltose (hereinafter referred to as “FCM”) which is a water soluble iron carbohydrate of complex of iron and oxidation product of one or more maltodextrins. Application for the grant of a patent was filed in India on 25th May 2005 which was granted on 25th June 2008. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. of Pune, Maharashtra, India, entered into a non-exclusive Licence Agreement dated 25.01.2012 for commercialisation of FCM in India.

    FCM treats iron deficiency and is administered intravenously and thus is a very useful replacement when other treatments are ineffective. The prior art iron preparations were based on sucrose and dextran, stable up to 100ºC only, rendering their sterilisation difficult. Further, dextran based complexes could introduce anaphylactic shock.
    Thus, a need existed for an iron preparation which was free from the adversities of the prior art and FCM fulfilled that need.

    In December 2020, Vifor came to know that MSN Laboratories Private Limited and (ii) MSN Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as“MSN”) were intending to launch ageneric, infringing FCM. Vifor was also informed that MSN was manufacturing FCM, claiming their process to be novel and inventive and not infringing IN’536. It may also be stated that a patent application was also filed by Virchow Biotech Pvt Ltd (hereinafter VBPL) claiming a process for the preparation of FCM. Other companies like Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as “DRL”) and Corona Remedies Private Limited were also allegedly infringing IN’536. It may also be stated that a patent application was also filed by Virchow Biotech Pvt Ltd (hereinafter VBPL) claiming a process for the preparation of FCM. Other companies like Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as “DRL”) and Corona Remedies Private Limited were also allegedly infringing IN’536. Vifor filed suits before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, demanding interim injunction against all the companies alleging infringement of IN’536. The issues were decided by a common judgement delivered by the High Court of Delhi on 24th July 2023 (CS (COMM) 261/2021 and connected matters).
    Contention of the Plaintiff
    Vifor claimed that Claim 1 of IN’536 is a product claim for FCM and could also be described as a ‘product-by-process’ claim, which was a common practice while drafting claims. The process elements are used to describe the end product which forms the subject matter of the claim and the process elements were not limiting. It averred that Claim 1 was a product per se claim and even if the product claimed is prepared using an alternative process; it would still amount to infringement as the process elements were claimed only for illustrative purpose. It tried to substantiate its stand that on the date of filing of the priority application in 2003, the product could not be structurally defined completely and therefore, the language of product-by-process claim was adopted.

    Claim 1 IN’536 reads as follows “Water soluble iron carbohydrate complexes obtainable from an aqueous solution of iron (III) salt and an aqueous solution of the oxidation product of one or more maltrodextrins using an aqueous hypochlorite solution at a pH-value within the alkaline range, where, when one maltodextrin is applied, its dextrose equivalent lies between 5 and 20, and when a mixture of several maltodextrins is applied, the dextrose equivalent of the mixture lies between 5 and 20 and the dextrose equivalent of each individual maltodextrin contained in the mixture lies between 2 and 40, wherein the obtained iron complexes have an average molecular weight of 80 kDa to 400 kDa.
    Vifor averred that FCM is a product covered directly under IN’536 and has definite and unique characteristic features, such as average molecular weight between 80 kDa and 400 kDa and manufacture by any unauthorised entity of a product which exhibits the same characteristics, would amount to infringement of IN’536, by virtue of Section 48 of the Indian Patents Act 1970. The products of the defendants fell within the claimed molecular weight range.

    Contention of the Defendant
    The defendants contended that the three prior art complexes identified in the suit patent are iron carbohydrate, iron-dextran, iron-pullulans or water soluble iron (III) hydroxide sucrose complex. Problems of the prior art identified in IN’536 are all process related, i.e., such prior art complexes are difficult to obtain and require production under pressure and high temperature and involve a hydrogenation step.

    The defendants further averred that description is silent on head-to-head comparison between iron-dextran and FCM and there is no disclosure whatsoever as to the nature and character of the prior art iron-carbohydrate complexes and the problems which are overcome by FCM. The first paragraph on page 2 of IN’536 reflects that the problem(s) identified in the prior art is solved only by an iron (III) carbohydrate complex, which is obtainable using the oxidation products of maltodextrin and the only oxidation route identified is using aqueous hypochlorite.
    Oxidation of maltodextrins yielding products in a molecular weight range of 80kDa to 400 kDa, was known in the prior art and the only novel and inventive step lies in the oxidation of maltodextrins using aqueous hypochlorite in the alkaline pH range. The contention of the plaintiff that irrespective of the process adopted, obtaining FCM through any other process would infringe IN’536, does not stand up to scrutiny. Further, opposition filed by the plaintiff in February, 2020 to the application no IN 3474/CHE/2013 admits in many places that claim 1 of IN’536 is a process claim.

    Discussion and analysis
    Though Indian Patents Act 1970 does not refer to the expression “product-by-process” but it finds mention in the Guidelines for examination of patent applications in the field of pharmaceuticals issued by the Indian patent office, with illustrative examples for determination of novelty for product-by-process claims. It lays down that a product-by-process claim must also define a novel and unobvious product and that its novelty cannot rest on the novelty and non-obviousness of the process alone. In other words, a product-by-process claim is to be tested on the anvil of novelty and inventiveness for the product and the novelty and inventiveness of the process.

    The High Court of Delhi averred that the preamble of Claim 1 of IN’536 recites ‘water-soluble iron carbohydrate complexes’ and ‘obtainable from’ is the transition phrase. The process steps claimed results in iron carbohydrate complexes with a defined average molecular weight between 80 kDa to 400 kDa. In case a product is claimed, it must be described by its composition and structure, both physical and chemical and should not be limited by a process.
    Vifor claims that claim 1 is a product claim without describing the product.

    There is an admission by Vifor that use of iron carbohydrate complexes is known and a water-soluble iron (III) hydroxide sucrose complex is a frequently and successfully used preparation. During prosecution in India, Vifor stated that the essence of invention resided in appropriately selecting suitable maltodextrins, having specific Dextrose Equivalent as defined in the claims and oxidizing them stereoselectively and regioselectively at the terminal aldehyde group and then by reacting them with iron (III) salts, as a result of which iron (III)-oxidized maltodextrin complexes are obtained, which are polynuclear complexes, having a specific high average molecular weight. The maltodextrins and the oxidation process are known, but the new feature of the present invention is that the obtained iron complexes are very stable to heat, have a very low toxicity, a low risk of anaphylactic shock, sterilized by heating and can be given intravenously. The process disclosed by the defendants included starch hydrolysate with dextan equivalent > 25 and therefore, the starting material itself was different from that used by the plaintiff. In another variation, oxidizing agent was oxone which was different from that used by the plaintiff. Iron carbohydrate complexes with a molecular weight ranging from 80 kDa to 400 kDa were known in the prior art. The process disclosed by the defendants appeared to be different from the process claimed by the plaintiff and also it appeared that the product claimed was known in the prior art. Therefore, the interim injunction against defendants was not granted. However, the defendants were directed to maintain the account books till the final adjudication.
    It is felt that the battle for interim injunction was lost because of inadequate effort by the plaintiff for characterising the product and bringing out its novelty. As disclosed hereinabove, the product had a number of advantages over the prior art products and it would have been worth while to dwell on the product characterisation as well. It appears that Vifor failed to capitalize on this aspect.

    In a concluding para of the judgment, the High Court of Delhi averred that in order to succeed in establishing its claim for infringement even at the prima facie stage, Vifor is required to show that the rival processes to manufacture FCM are identical, which burden Vifor has failed to discharge. The conclusion is at complete variance with the section 104A (1) of the Indian Patents Act 1970 which states that in case of suits concerning infringement of a patent, where the subject matter is a process for obtaining a product, the court may direct the defendant to prove that the process used by him is different from the patented product. Thus, it was the defendant who was to prove that alleged infringing process was different from that of the patented process. The burden of proof regarding a process related infringement lies with the defendant and not with the plaintiff.

    It is re-iterated that there is no statute in the Indian Patents Act 1970 regarding product-by-process claims. Reference to the Guidelines for examination of patent applications in the field of pharmaceuticals, issued by the Indian Patents Office, can at best be considered persuasive. Nevertheless, it is perhaps for the first time that a judgement has dealt extensively on the subject matter of product-by-process claims.

    Global perspective on product-by-process patent claims
    EPO accepts product-by-process claims only if the product is different form an existing product and the difference may not be describable in chemical and physical terms (Flavors & Fragrances Inc [1984] OJ EPO 309). The EPO's approach to such claims is settled today and is permitted only if there is no other way available to the inventor for defining the product.
    Donald Chisum in his ‘Chisum on Patents: A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement’ defines a product-by-process claim as one in which the product is defined at least in part in terms of the method or process by which it is made. This definition has been referred to by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the United States in Atlantic Thermoplastics Co., Inc. v. Faytex Corporation, 970 F.2d 834. Thus, the process claims and product characteristics are integrated and are incomplete without each other.

    The courts have also considered the thin line between: a) product ‘obtained by’ a process; and (b) a product ‘obtainable by’ a process (Hospira UL Limited v. Genentech Inc., [2014] EWHC 3857 (Pat). These two at-least prima-facie appear to be different. A product “obtained by” a process would be infringed only if a product was made that way in which it is claimed in the claim. If the product was made in any other way in the prior art, it would have no bearing on the process claimed. This was the view taken of product by process claims in the Court of Appeal in Kirin Amgen ([2002] EWCA Civ 1096, [2003] RPC 3). The word "obtainable by" was intended to claim a product irrespective of how it was made but with a particular product characteristic which is the same characteristic which results from using a given process (Johnson Matthey case cited in argument (T956/04). For example, if the distribution of catalyst particle size produced by a process, resulted in a beneficial catalytic property, it may not matter how the specific particle size was produced. In such a case, the particle size distribution process may have been claimed only for illustrative purpose and therefore ‘obtainable by’ word used. The view taken by the EPO in the 1980s (IFF / Claim Categories T150/82 and later cases T248/85 and T219/83) was firmly against that an old thing could be patented using a product by process language. If a product was known in the prior art, product-by-process language in the claims could confer novelty on the prior art product. The words “obtained by” and “obtainable by” were to be treated at par. If the process introduced specific characteristics in the product, then only it could be considered different from that in the prior art product.
    Thread Bare
    Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. successfully prevents its trademark "GLUCO" from infringement
    Recently, Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. (Parle) represented by R K Dewan & Co., successfully restrained the infringers for infringing its trademark “GLUCO” which is one of the most popular and reputed brand in India and has been openly, continuously, and extensively used by Parle for over 80 years, in a suit filed before Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

    Parle has been India's largest manufacturer of biscuits and confectionery, for almost 90 years. Makers of the world's largest selling biscuit, Parle-G, and a host of other very popular brands, Parle has a 43% share of the total biscuit market and a 15% share of the total confectionary market in India. In 1940, Parle adopted the mark “GLUCO” in respect of biscuits. On 7th December, 1942, Parle applied for and obtained registration of its device mark bearing the trademark “GLUCO” as one of its prominent features in class 30.

    In January 2023, Parle came to know that, Taaj Food & Beverages and Charchika Traders were offering for sale/selling beverages under an infringing trademark “GLUCO FILL” on the website www.indiamart.com.
    Upon further investigation, Parle also came across an application filed by Utkal Kumar Behera to have the infringing mark registered.

    R K Dewan & Co. on behalf of Parle approached the Bombay High Court, and filed a suit for trademark infringement. The Hon’ble Court granted an ex parte injunction, restraining the Defendants and held that the mark “GLUCO FILL” was nearly-identical and deceptively similar to Parle’s registered mark “GLUCO”.

    The Court was pleased to appoint a Court receiver to search all premises of the Defendants and seize and seal all the infringing material including cartons, dyes, moulds, printing equipment and material and any other material bearing the impugned mark. The Hon’ble Court also approved the appointment of Additional Special Receivers (ASR) to inspect, sign and make copies of account ledgers/cash books/accounts books, manufacture and/or import records pertaining to sales etc. of the infringing products, as discovered from the premises of the Defendants.

    Shortly thereafter, in July 2023, the R K Dewan & Co. team assisted the ASR(s) and the Local Police to investigate and conduct smooth and successful raids at all the three premises of the Defendants wherein packets/pouches bearing the infringing mark were discovered.
    Snips and Specs

    Go To Top

    Hush! it’s a secret invention!

    It is reported that the Japanese government is planning to establish laws to keep patents with possible military uses secret and compensate the applicants for their lost income due to such secrecy.

    Certain specifications of the said proposal can be described as under:

    1. The proposed legislation shall assess patent applications for technologies that may aid in the development of nuclear weapons, such as uranium enrichment, as well as cutting-edge breakthroughs, such as quantum technology. Patents that pose a national security danger if made public will be kept secret, and applicants will be prevented from submitting in other countries.

    2. The applications will be reviewed by a panel comprising of representatives from the Defence Ministry, the National Security Secretariat, and other agencies for preventing any possible abuse by foreign actors.

    3. The Japanese government shall reimburse nearly 20 years of licencing revenue to the applicants to cover their losses faced due to the imposition of the secrecy directives which have been calculated to comprise of only 3% to 5% of revenue which the government shall receive from such secret inventions.

    These measures by the Japanese Government will prove to be beneficial for their national security and defence mechanism. Once the legislation comes into force, the applicable inventions shall be saved from the public’s eye and won’t be accessible to any person within or outside the country, which may give the country sole authority over the invention.

    The Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), contains similar provisions for secrecy of certain inventions, since the inception of the Act in the year 1970. Therefore, it can be observed that Indian Patent Laws were ahead of its time during its inception. The procedure for application of secrecy directions as per the Act is as follows:

    • Reason for imposition of secrecy directions: The patent application may belong to a class that the Central Government has designated as important for defence objectives, or it may be subject to the judgement of the Controller of Patents (hereinafter referred to as Controller).

    • Notification of secrecy directions to the applicant: The Controller may notify a patent application (i.e. a patent application before the grant/refusal) as a secret under Section (35) of The Act. Post which the patent applicant is barred from disclosing or sharing information about the patent to any other party.

    • Central Government review and decision: The patent application is then sent to the Central Government for review to see whether technical details of the patent should be made public in order to protect India's national interests or not. If the Central Government agrees with the assessment of the Controller, limitations on the patent application will remain in effect. The Central Government may order the Controller to relax the limitations put on the patent application if the Central Government believes that publication of the technical details of the patent application would not be detrimental to India's national interests. Furthermore, the Central Government on its own motion may also inform the Controller at any time before a patent is granted that the patent application is significant for defence reasons, and the Controller's directives, as indicated above, will take effect.

    • Use of the secret patent by the government: When the secrecy directions are in effect, and the patent application is found to be in order for grant of the patent, the Central Government or any third parties designated by the Central Government may put the invention into usage, while treating the patent application as a granted.

    • Compensation to the applicant: If the Central Government believes that the patent applicant suffered as a result of the secrecy instructions on the patent application, the Central Government may compensate the patent applicant adequately, by determining its uniqueness, usefulness, and purpose of the invention.

    • Constant Evaluation of secrecy directions: The Central Government is required to evaluate the secrecy instructions every six months or upon request of the patent applicant under section 36 of the Patents Act, 1970.

    The Indian Patent law also contains provisions of secrecy for certain inventions in its legislation since many prior years. However, it is difficult to assess the implication of the same. Neither does the compensation clause in The Act have any accountability nor does it have any specifications in terms of compensation being provided to the applicants, thus making it uncertain. It is important to understand that while the interests of the public at large must prevail at times, the private individual should be treated fairly.

    Go To Top

    Not so ‘Pooh-er’ condition

    A Copyright is an exclusive right granted to a creator of an original work to reproduce his own work or authorise reproduction of the same to others for a fixed tenure after which the copyrighted work falls into public domain.

    As per the Copyright law of the United States (hereinafter referred as ‘the USA’), a copyright is protected for 95 years from the date of first publication. However, copyrighted works published in the USA after January 1st, 1978 are protected for the author's lifetime plus 70 years. Further depending on whether or not the work was of “work-for-hire” nature or created by a corporation, the term may change as well. However, works published before January 1, 1927 (other than sound recordings), have already made their way into the public domain.

    A.A. Milne, the author of the book ‘Winnie the Pooh’ had published the book in 1926. As a result, the legendary characters from the book namely, “Winnie the Pooh”, “Piglet”, “Kanga”, “Owl”, “Eeyore” have entered the public domain as of 1st January 2022 and therefore are not under copyright protection anymore. However, the character "Tigger" who first appears in the novel in 1928, happens to be still protected by copyright for another two years.

    *We claim no copyright rights in the above image. It has been used for representational purposes only.

    Moreover, Milne's original text, as well as the characters he created, are available for free use. However, it does not mean that anyone may exploit the concept of ‘Winnie the Pooh’ artistically or commercially as Disney stills owns the copyrights for all the subsequent versions of the ‘Winnie the Pooh’ characters. In 1961, Disney had purchased the licensing rights of ‘Winnie the Pooh’ from Stephen Slesinger, New York television and film producer who had obtained the rights from Milne himself in 1930. By the virtue of purchase of the licensing rights, Disney’s subsequent versions of ‘Winnie the Pooh’ characters are under copyright protection for years to come.

    Authors and companies may reproduce, reprint or alter the original content by A.A. Milne with minor restrictions. However, any additional adaptations or merchandising of items may constitute to be infringing on the existing copyright rights owned by Disney.

    As per reported in the New York Times, Disney has earned around $5.5 billion in revenue from its Winnie the Pooh merchandise.

    Other notable books that entered the public domain at the start of the year include Ernest Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises," T.E. Lawrence's "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom," which was later adapted into the film "Lawrence of Arabia," and Felix Salten's "Bambi, A Life in the Woods," which Disney adapted into the film "Bambi."

    Go To Top

    Sherbet Lemon: Delhi High Court opens new doors in Trademark Litigation

    Consumers tend to recognize their preferred brand labels as a whole and not in broken fragments. This has been the view of Courts generally while hearing disputes relating to similar trademarks are brought before the court. However, a divergent view was taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of of Hamdard National Foundation & Anr. vs. Sadar Laboratories.1

    Hamdard National Foundation (hereinafter referred as “Hamdard”) filed a trademark infringement suit against Sadar Laboratories (“Sadar”) for using the mark “Dil Afza” under class 32, for the purpose of manufacturing and selling sharbat, which is deceptively similar to Hamdard’s popular sharbat “Rooh Afza”.

    Hamdard has a duly registered mark Rooh Afza under class 32 for selling fruit drinks.. It claimed that its product is “unique in its colour combination, layout and features, with a specific floral arrangement on the bottles”. Hamdard has been selling Rooh Afza sharbats since August 1942 and claimed that it has now obtained the status of a well-known trademark. Hamdard claimed that Sardar is deceptively selling sharbats under a similar mark – Dil Afza. Hamdard has further claimed that, Sadar claims to have been in the use of the mark Dil Afza since 1949, however, no documents to that effect have been put on record.

    On the other hand, Sadar contended that both the marks Rooh Afza and Dil Afza have co-existed peacefully under class 5 (pharmaceuticals) where the parties have been involved in the selling of medicines and there has been no confusion amongst the consumers. Therefore, Hamdard’s claim that the sale of sharbats under the same name would create confusion must be set aside. Sadar also explained that its label is distinct as it bears fruits and the bottle bears a brown cap as opposed to the flowers and yellow cap used by Hamdard.

    Source- https://www.legaleraonline.com

    *We do not claim any copyright in the image used. It has been used for academic and representational purposes

    The Delhi High Court Bench considering the claims of Hamdard observed that the goodwill and reputation of Rooh Afza cannot be overlooked. However, while siding with Sardar, the Court held that accepting the marks in question to be identical “would be taking an extreme position”. The Court then went on to bifurcate the mark Rooh Afza into “Rooh” and “Afza” and stated that the term “afza” cannot be associated only with the product of Hamdard and hence, Sardar could not be restricted from using such a word for its label since no separate registration for the words “Rooh” and “Afza” had been filed for by Hamdard.

    The Court also went on to consider Sadar’s contention that there was no confusion with respect to the terms being used in the pharmaceutical front, and held that Sadar has been using ‘Dil Afza’ for Unani medicines from at least since 1976, even then, for such a long time in the field of a more sensitive market of medicine, apparently, there has been peaceful co-existence with no confusion arising in the minds of the consumers. Therefore even if the sharbat has been produced only since 2020, no case has been made out to restrain Sadar from marketing its sharbat under the name ‘Dil Afza’. The claims made by Hamdard would have received a green signal, only in the situation where either the words “Rooh” and “Afza” were registered simultaneously, or Sadar was involved in selling its products under the label “Rooh Afza” as a whole.

    Presently, a rectification suit has been filed by Hamdard claiming non-disclosure of facts before the Trademark Registry and the same is currently pending. The Hon’ble Bench has observed that presently no interim injunction shall be awarded in the matter while ordering Sadar to submit their accounts and quarterly reports for the purpose of record until the disposal of the suit, which shall take place after the disposal of the rectification suit filed by Hamdard.

    1Hamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr. vs. Sardar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., CS (Comm) 551/2020.

    Go To Top

    HARPIC VS DOMEX: who’s cleaner is better ?

    Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, (“RB”) an internationally renowned company involved in the manufacture of the famous toilet cleaner “HARPIC”, is the registered proprietor of the word mark ‘HARPIC’ in class 3 bearing registration No. 347055 dated 15.03.1979. RB has also filed applications for registration of the unique and distinctive bottle shape of its HARPIC branded products in India in classes 1 and 3 and the applications for their trademark registration are pending before the Trade Marks Registry.

    Hindustan Unilever Limited (“HUL”), a consumer goods company, introduced its toilet cleaner ‘DOMEX’ in India in 1997. In 2015 – 2016, it came up with a unique technology which helps in making the hard surfaces such as that of a toilet bowl, hydrophobic by using a chemical compound called Silane. Due to the novelty of the said technology in its product ‘Domex FreshGuard’, it contains patented technology for Hard Surface Treatment Composition under Patent No. 368377.

    HUL launched five advertisements including a television commercial (hereinafter, TVC), print advertisement and YouTube videos which as a general theme implied that the use of HARPIC leads to bad odour and that HUL’s product is of superior quality.

    The present case, before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, deals with a suit filed by RB against HUL for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, to restrict and prevent the HUL from denigrating and disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the RB’s trademark ‘HARPIC’ and restrain it from broadcasting the impugned advertisements which defame and vilify the plaintiff’s product.

    Screenshot of the TVC

    *We do not claim any copyright in the image used. It has been used for academic and representational purposes.

    The TVC showed a child questioning his mother who was buying HARPIC and casting a shadow on the efficiency of the product. HUL’s toilet cleaner was then shown as an alternative to the same. It was contended by RB that the TVC makes false assertions which clearly ridicule the use of RB’s product and nudges consumers to shift their preference to Domex instead. HUL claimed that the statements made in its TVC were completely true and there was no disparagement of RB’s product.

    Fifth advertisement

    *We do not claim any copyright in the image used. It has been used for academic and representational purposes.

    The third advertisement directly made a comparison between the two products which was alleged to be defamatory. With regards to the second, fourth and fifth advertisement, the use of the clearly identifiable Harpic bottle and the implication that it’s an ‘ordinary toilet cleaner’ was disputed by RB. HUL denied the claim and stated that there was no reference to RB’s product and it was a rough rendering of a generic shape of a toilet cleaner bottle.


    The Court relied on a catena of judgements and clarified that the general legal stance is that in comparative advertisements, one must not make misleading or false assertions which defame the goods of the competitor and make them seem inferior. However, the Court conceded that within the ambit of the grey area, comparison of goods and establishing superiority is permissible and the overall effect and intent of the advertisement need to be assessed.

    It was held that a holistic look of the TVC shows that it does not intend to denigrate RB’s product but only seeks to show that the defendant’s product, DOMEX is a better solution on account of its patented technology. It was reiterated that a plaintiff must not be hypersensitive as commercial speech, a part of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, gives certain room to the advertiser to play around in the advertisements.

    The Court also held that the second, third, fourth and fifth advertisements, prima facie disparaged the product of the plaintiff, and the defendant was restrained from publishing the same on all forums until the references to RB’s product or the bottle which is deceptively similar to the registered mark of RB, were removed.

    Go To Top

    “Piggy backing” another’s registered trademark on your own is unauthorized

    V Guard Industries Limited (‘V Guard’) deals in pumps and motors, water heaters, and the like. It started using the trademark ‘PEBBLE’ (a device mark comprising the word ‘Pebble’ and an image) (bearing Registration No. 2541387 in Class 11) for heating installations and electric products in 2013 and also obtained registration for the said mark in the same year. Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd. (“Butterfly”) also deals in electronic products under its brand 'BUTTERFLY’. In February 2021, V Guard was made aware that Butterfly is selling their product - a mixer grinder - under the mark 'PEBBLE' on Butterfly’s website: www.butterflyindia.com. V Guard claimed that Butterfly is infringing V Guard’s trademark rights by selling similar goods under their registered mark ‘PEBBLE’, and filed a trademark infringement suit at the Delhi High Court: V Guard Industries Limited v. Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd. CS(COMM) 225/2021. V Guard sought an ex-parte interim injunction to restrain Butterfly from using the mark ‘PEBBLE’ or any other identical or deceptively similar mark for dealing in electronic/ electrical goods including kitchen appliances. In its Order dated May 13, 2021, the Court, granted an ex-parte interim injunction against Butterfly stating that V Guard had made out a prima facie case in its favour.

    case in its favour. The Court observed that a perusal of Butterfly’s website shows that it is selling a mixer grinder under the mark 'BUTTERFLY/PEBBLE PLUS'. And though Butterfly had registered the mark ‘BUTTERFLY’ (bearing Registration No. 765414 in Class 11) it had not filed any trademark application for the mark 'PEBBLE'. It is not uncommon amongst proprietors to register the parent brand name only, and use sub-brands or product names without checking their availability for use. However, cases such as this one, show that use of a competitor’s trademark as a part of one’s product/model name can make the user liable for trademark infringement even when it is used along with one’s own registered trademark. The suit will now proceed to trial.

    Go To Top

    Copyright Protection in the World of Memes!

    In the era of internet, emoticons and symbols were commonly used for communicating emotions via messages and social media posts until the ‘internet Memes’ showed up. Presently, internet Memes (hereinafter referred as ‘Memes’) are extensively used by the public at large to express their ideas and emotions in a humorous manner. A meme usually consists of an image, short video, piece of text, etc., shared rapidly by internet users, often with slight variations. As sharing a meme within closed circle of friends, colleagues, family & relatives has become a common practice, it is essential to understand the legal perspective on using memes and the ownership rights in such works.

    *We claim no copyright rights in the above image. It has been used for representational purposes only.

    A meme is protected under the Indian Copyrights Act, 1957 falling under the ambit of "artistic works" provided under section 2(c) which includes paintings, sculptures, drawings (including diagrams, maps, charts), engravings, photographs, works of architecture and works of artistic craftsmanship. As the provision also clarifies inclusion of photographs (images) for protection under 'artistic works', such a work when copied or reproduced, without any authorization, may amount to infringement and attract section 2 (m) (i) of the Copyright Act which defines "infringing copy". Memes may either be created by using photographs or videos that are available in the public domain making them merely derivative works that generate from existing copyright material, or may have been created by the “memer” using pictures belonging to him/ her. It is the latter which has the possibility of resulting in an infringement suit and depends on the veracity of the images used in the making of the meme. Therefore, a true owner of a meme can always call upon the infringer to restrain usage of the meme and/or to pay damages, if their work is used without their consent for commercial purposes. However, despite taking all necessary precautions, there exists a possibility that an individual may end up infringing the rights of the owner. Here, it is the doctrine of ‘fair dealing’ that comes into play. This particular doctrine is an exception to the copyright law that protects an original work. Section 52 (1) of the Copyrights Act provides certain acts or works that cannot be constituted as copyright infringement, which includes artistic, literary, dramatic or musical work. In the case of Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma [1996 PTR 142], the Kerala High Court substantiated, the fact that parody and satire, being copies of the original work for criticizing, do not count as illegitimate use of the original work and thus qualify as “fair dealing with the work”.

    Determination as to whether or not a meme would qualify under ‘fair dealing’ would be subject to the following:

    • Purpose of Work

    Memes are generally considered to be “recreational activities” and provide for comic relief while expressing one’s ideas. Copyright infringement cases broadly deal with situations involving commercial benefit as opposed to recreational purposes. On the other hand, some social media accounts have derived economic benefits from these activities. In such cases, possible situation of infringement may be taken into account if proper permissions are not sought.

    • Nature of Copyright Work

    A foremost criterion in the field of copyright is the existence of the ‘artistic works’ in public domain. If the work in question has been available in the public domain for a very long time, and the memer has borrowed the same for the purpose of entertainment, he may take up the defense under the doctrine of fair usage.

    • Amount of copyright work involved

    Making use of insignificant portions or stills from a published, yet copyrighted work may not amount to infringement under the copyright laws. There also exists a plethora of stock photographs and templates available for public use which would not amount to infringement if used for the purpose of meme.

    *We claim no copyright rights in the above image. It has been used for representational purposes only.

    • Resultant effect of such use

    Commercial benefit was never the aim of memes. Despite this, with time, business entities and bloggers have begun including memes to publicize their content and gain maximum advertisement benefits. Hence, permission from the owner of the original right becomes important before releasing it in the public domain to avoid an instance of infringement.

    While the doctrine of fair usage has its advantages in the publication of memes, there are situations where memes may end up becoming a matter of concern. If there has been violation of fundamental rights by way of memes, the memer is not permitted to use the defence of fair use. For instance, in the infamous incident of creation of meme using a face cut-out of Mamta Banerjee and adding it to the Cannes outfit worn by Priyanka Chopra was seen to be such an instance and directions were issues for removal of the meme alongside an apology letter by the creator.

    The case of Warner Bros shows a situation of violation of rights wherein the creators of two of the internet's well-known cat memes Charles Schmidt and Christopher Orlando Torres sued Warner Brothers for copyright and trademark infringement based on images of Nyan Cat (created by Torres) and Keyboard Cat (created by Schmidt) which appeared in the video game Scribblenauts for using them without permission. Warner Bros. had to pay a compensation of $100 million.

    *We claim no copyright rights in the above image. It has been used for representational purposes only.

    Therefore, it is advisable for young creators to seek proper approvals from the owners of the work prior to utilizing the same. Creation of meme for recreation and amusement purposes is fair but in case of utilizing the meme with any commercial intent, one should obtain necessary consents as well as licenses from the copyright owners of the works involved in order to avoid facing any legal liability.

    Go To Top

    Settle matters privately and get your court fees returned!

    The Hon’ble Delhi High Court recently in a judgement relating to a Trademark dispute refunded the entire court fees, where the parties mutually and privately settled the matter outside of the Court.

    The Hon’ble Court relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to pass this judgement in “The High Court of Judicature at Madras rep. by its Registrar General vs M.C. Subramanium & Ors”.

    An understanding of the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code”) and Court Fees Act, 1870 (“Act 1870”) will be helpful.

    Section 89 of the Code stipulates Settlement of disputes outside the Court:

    (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for: —

    (a) arbitration;

    (b) conciliation;

    (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat: or

    (d) mediation.

    (2) Were a dispute has been referred—

    (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act;

    (b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;

    (c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act;

    (d) For mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.]

    Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870

    16. Refund of fee- Where the court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the court authorising him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was of the opinion that the purpose of refund of court fees is to reward the parties who have chosen to put an end to their litigation by resorting to a conciliatory dispute settlement mechanism, thus saving the time and resources of the Court.

    Furthermore, the parties who have agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial intervention under Section 89 CPC are even more deserving of this benefit. This is because, by choosing to resolve their claims themselves, they have saved the state of the logistical hassle of arranging for a third-party institution to settle their dispute.

    Though arbitration and mediation are certainly salutary dispute resolution mechanisms, the importance of private amicable negotiation between the parties cannot be underestimated. Thus, the participants in private settlements should be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under Section 89 CPC.

    Go To Top

    Hidden Meanings in Trade Marks

    *We claim no rights in the above logo. It has been used for representational purposes only.

    Headquartered in San Jose, California, Cisco Systems, Inc., is an American international technological conglomerate firm. Cisco Systems, Inc. is into the development, manufacturing as well as distribution of networking gear, software, telecommunications equipment, and other high-technology services and products, ultimately being a key contributor to Silicon Valley's success.

    As per Mr. John Morgridge, former CEO of Cisco Systems, “finding a logo for the company literally involved taking a drive in the sunshine for the founders.” While driving to Sacramento in order to complete the registration formalities for the company, the founders saw the Golden Gate Bridge framed in the sunlight.

    Hence, the lines above the ‘Cisco’ lettering denote the Golden Gate Bridge. Further, Morgridge says, the founders hoped to “convey something about creating an authentic life and making a living at something you believe in, in a place you love, with people you really like to be with.” with their logo thereby shaping the future.

    Go To Top

    Hidden gems of India

    Kuchaman City- A Lost City

    - Adv. Chinmay Pawar

    The town of Kuchaman is in Nagaur district in the state of Rajasthan. The nearest major city is a state capital Jaipur approximately 150 kms. The city includes a few Havelis, traditional townhouses, and a fort overlooking the town.

    The local fort is a tourist attraction. A few Havelis have also opened their doors to the guests. The major sights of interest include Kuchaman Fort, Meera Mahal, Jal Mahal, Sabha Prakash, Lok Dev Temple, Chini Pole, Ganesh Dungri, Shakambhri Hill.

    *We claim no copyright rights in the above image. It has been used for representational purposes only.

    Go To Top


    Keep yourself acquainted with the latest in IP news. Subscribe to our free newsletter to get regular updates.

    Copyright © 2023 R. K. Dewan & Co.

    Quiz Corner
    1. A registered trademark cannot be renewed in the following countries without declaration of use:
    a. Japan, USA, Brazil, Canada
    b. USA, Philippines, Singapore, Argentina
    c. USA, UK, EU, China
    d. USA, Brazil, Argentina, Guatemala

    2. A European Patent can be validated in the following countries:
    a. Switzerland, UK, Monaco, Luxemburg
    b. UK, Moldova, Scotland, Finland
    c. Vatican City, Ireland, UK, Sweden
    d. Greenland, Iceland, Finland, Ireland

    3. In the following countries a single design application with multiple embodiments can be filed for registration
    a. India, Canada, UK, China
    b. UK, China, UAE, India
    c. US, UK, Malaysia, Canada
    d. UK, UAE, China, India

    4. The following countries are signatories to PCT & Paris Convention:
    a. Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan, Russia
    b. India, Tajikistan, Chad, San Marino
    c. India, Chile, Bolivia, Uruguay
    d. US, India, Paraguay, Argentina

    5. How many Trademark Classes are available for registration of Goods:
    a. 44
    b. 34
    c. 45
    d. 46
    Hidden Gems of India - The Holy City of Ujjain
    The Holy City of Ujjain which is generally referred to as the ‘city of temples’ is one of the ancient and continuously in habited city in the world. Apart from being the home to several shrines of spiritual importance, Ujjain is special for one more reason.

    In ancient times, keeping a track of time was essential in order to gain knowledge of planetary positions and forecasting auspicious days, which was important for Vedic rituals. According to ‘Surya Siddhanta’, a 4th century astrological treatise; the city of Ujjain, earlier known as ‘Avantika’ was considered as the nabhi or the navel of the Earth as it is situated at the junction where the ancient Zero degree meridian longitude and the Tropic of Cancer converged. Hence, Ujjain helped in determining the time as well as aiding the geographical calculations.

    Consequently, Indian astrologers and mathematicians like Varahamihira, Brahmagupta, and Bhaskaracharya made Ujjain as their home. Additionally, in around 58-56 BC, King Vikramaditya introduced the hindu calendar “Vikram Samvat” through Ujjain.

    In the 17th century, Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh one of the great astronomer, constructed Jantar Mantar Mahal or (Vedh Shala) and installed 4 different instruments to calculate time through the study of Sun and shadows in order to educate the people about the subject of horology. Even today “panchang” or a horoscope as per the Hindu almanac is according to Ujjain’s time which is somewhere around 29 minutes behind Indian Standard time.