Sep 9, 2021 | Contracts
Disputes are an intrinsic component of the legal system, arising from variances in understanding, implementation, violation of obligations, infringement of rights, or unexpected events. In the Indian context, it is crucial to effectively resolve contractual disputes to preserve an ideal business environment in a country undergoing fast economic growth and increased corporate operations. Nevertheless, the existing legal system needs assistance to provide prompt decisions. The court procedures are widely known for their lengthy duration, sometimes extending the pursuit of justice beyond reasonable time limits. Although settling conflicts in court is not intrinsically fruitless, the excessive number of cases overwhelms the legal system, resulting in harmful problems such as significant delays, extensive backlogs, and costly litigation costs. This is especially problematic in contractual disputes, as even minor issues can snowball into protracted legal conflicts.
In such a setting to solve these apparent flaws, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) emerges as a viable route, delivering quick and cost-effective justice. This very idea has been present in India in the form of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Mediation Act, 2023, and even Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, where the Courts encourage individuals to resolve conflicts under the ADR process, which is a time-saving mechanism that aids to resolves issues quicker than court hearings, ensuring speedy resolutions, where proceedings occur privately, fees and expenses are less, and its scheduling is adaptable. Moreover, a neutral third party oversees ADR proceedings.
Today, this very mechanism is incorporated by individuals in their commercial agreement, as a dispute resolution clause, which may consist of methods like conciliation, mediation, negotiation, or arbitration, to avoid early and needless court actions.
Significance of Arbitration
Even if conciliation, mediation, or discussion are considerably more flexible and efficient than arbitration, individuals who adopt a dispute resolution clause in contracts prefer arbitration because not only can the parties pick an arbitrator to evaluate the evidence but also the decision carried out in arbitration have legal enforceability, making it legible and effective with limited options of review or appeal. As part of their crystallized dispute resolution policy, up to 91% of businesses prefer arbitration to litigation to resolve disputes, according to a report by PwC India[1].
Arbitration may seem identical to any court proceeding. However, there is more to arbitration than the selection of an arbitrator and the presence of legally binding force. Unlike litigation, the dispute resolution procedure is less stringent, and the judge/arbitrator may not hear any other case simultaneously, allowing arbitration to be concluded more swiftly. Moreover, arbitration can incorporate a degree of bargaining, providing the arbitrator greater freedom in their final arbitral award decision; apart from that, this approach is prevalent in commercial disputes and other industries such as securities, labor, employment, and construction. In international contracts, arbitration has been a preferred means of dispute resolution, and most crucially, it helps prevent class-action lawsuits. In brief, parties add arbitration clauses to handle future conflicts swiftly and cost-effectively.
Conditions for Arbitration Clause in a Contract
As per Section 7(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ‘”arbitration agreement” means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.’ As per Section 7(2), an arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or the form of a separate agreement. However, there is no universally applicable format for arbitration clauses in contracts and simply mentioning an arbitration clause is not sufficient, for a contract to fully benefit from arbitration. Therefore, to optimize the likelihood of effective and efficient dispute resolution through the translation of an interest or dispute into an arbitration clause, it is critical to strategically ascertain the client’s interest in the dispute, the contract’s characteristics, the parties involved, the types of conflicts that are probable to arise, and the countries that are likely to be involved in any potential dispute. Additionally, comprehension of circumstances that may necessitate extraordinary provisions—such as temporary relief, confidentiality, and other critical matters—might be required. In conclusion, every arbitration clause must be suitably crafted by the specific circumstances, criteria, and parties involved in the dispute. A hastily drafted arbitration clause can potentially develop into a pathological provision that is unenforceable or requires clarification, resulting in costly and time-consuming legal conflicts.
Arbitration clauses can be drafted in 3 ways: primary, general, and complex clauses, depending on the type of contract, which include:
- Primary clauses are essential terms required for a sustainable arbitration agreement, commonly contained in institutional model agreements.
- General clauses: These are typically used in contracts involving significant transactions, where extra elements are provided beyond the opening phrases, addressing specific matters including venue, language, and governing law.
- Complex clauses: These consist of elements beyond primary clauses, such as confidentiality, discovery, multi-party arbitration, and waiving of appeals. They require careful adaptation to prevent discrepancies and maintain validity across jurisdictions.
Other requirements may include that the arbitration agreement must be written.
Independence of Arbitration agreement
If a contract refers to a document containing an arbitration clause, and the contract is in writing, then that arbitration clause is considered part of the contract, as per Section 7 (3) and (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However as per the Doctrine of Severability, if a small part of a law doesn’t follow the parent law, the court can remove that part and keep the rest of the law intact. Under the same instance as well, as per Section 16(a) and (b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitration provision in a contract is viewed as different from the primary contract itself and consequently remains valid even if the contract expires or becomes null and void. Similarly, even if both parties mutually terminate the arbitration agreement, still in case of disputes involving the primary agreement’s/ primary contract terms or subject matter, dispute will be handled by arbitration, as stated in the case of Ashok Thapar v. Tarang Exports (P) Ltd, (2018).[2] Thus the arbitration clause, a distinct agreement in the contract, exists independently from its other clauses. Despite of this, the ultimate resolve depends upon the nature of the controversy and its effect upon the existence or survival of the contract itself, as provided in the case of Mulheim Pipecoatings Gmbh v. Welspun Fintrade Ltd,(2013)[3].
Conclusion
From the detailed analysis presented in the text, it’s clear that the significance of arbitration clauses in contracts is multifaceted and substantial. They provide a structured path for resolving conflicts, enhance contract enforceability, and protect all parties’ interests, making it valid and legally robust. Moreover, being independent of the contract itself, the enforceability of the arbitration process remains intact even if parts of the contract are disputed or nullified.
But even so, the effectiveness of an arbitration clause and its value in commercial agreements greatly depends on its meticulous drafting, which could include constituents such as the governing law, the seat of arbitration, the appointment of the arbitrator, or the language. Such a well-crafted arbitration clause, tailored to the specific needs and contexts of the parties and the nature of the contract, is essential to ensure that disputes are resolved efficiently without further complications. The potential pitfalls of poorly drafted clauses—such as being unenforceable or requiring extensive legal interpretation—are highlighted and encourage the need for precision and foresight in contractual drafting.
Thus, such clauses must be comprehensive and customized to address all potential issues, ensuring that arbitration is an efficient alternative to traditional litigation and supports India’s broader economic and legal environments
[1]AK492- May 2013 Corporate Attitudes & Practices.indd-https://www.pwc.in/assets/pdfs/publications/2013/corporate-attributes-and-practices-towards-arbitration-in-india.pdf
[2] (2018) SCC Online Bom 1489
[3] (2013)SCC Online Bom 1048
Author: Gautam Bhatia, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore
Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)
Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE
Join LinkedIn Group: Innovation & IPR
Aug 25, 2021 | Copyright
From Elbert Woods’ ‘Ickey Shuffle’ to Stephen Curry’s signature point to the sky in praise after scoring a three-point basket to the iconic ‘Sii!’ move adopted by Ronaldo, sports fans around the world have come to associate their favorite legends with their signature celebratory moves. This, accompanied by a shift of fan following from sport clubs or countries to individual players, has increased the popularity of these athletes and has paved the way for them to market their personality and captivate audiences both on and off the sports arena using uniquely choreographed dances or celebratory moves[i]. However, the problem arises when third parties feed off their popularity by attaching images or sketches of such celebrations to products such as water bottles or t-shirts, thereby unfairly taking advantage of the character that the athletes have worked so hard to create. A solution that presents itself is to allow signature sports celebrations to be protected under copyright law thereby preserving the uniqueness of the celebration and allowing athletes to commercially exploit their own creations, thereby allowing them financial gain especially considering that most of them have short-lived careers[ii].
Protection afforded to Dramatic Work
The primary objective of copyright protection is to encourage artists, craftsmen, musicians, and other creators to make their creations available for public welfare and enjoyment, by rewarding these creators with protection and property rights of and over their creations. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 extends not only to literary and artistic works but also to dramatic work which includes choreographic moves that are “fixed in writing or otherwise but does not include a cinematograph film”[iii]. Therefore, it is a well-established principle of intellectual property jurisprudence that choreography can be afforded copyright protection. However, fixation is a criterion that must be mandatorily met for a dramatic work to be protected under copyright law and while Western Jurisprudence on fixation adopts a wide approach[iv], Indian Jurisprudence is narrow. The Indian Judiciary has held that a dramatic work can only be afforded protection under Copyright law if it fulfills the criteria of being fixed in writing or concretized in a literary format[v]. Additionally, in the case of Academy of General Education, Manipal and Ors. v. B. Malini Mallya, the Supreme Court emphatically held that a unique form of ballet could be copyrighted as a dramatic work only if reproduced in a literary format[vi]. This exclusion of fixation in the form of a video recording significantly hampers the rights of choreographers and performers who live in a technology driven world but can only claim copyright protection for their choreography if translated to a written format[vii]. However, performer’s rights have been elucidated under the Act and it protects against reproduction, broadcasting, or communication of original creations to the public without the consent of the creator[viii], thereby given “any person who makes a performance” an exclusive right over their creative expression[ix].
Sports Celebrations as Choreography
When Hennry Abromson decided to apply for copyright protection of a sports move called PS:I 1 created by long distance runner Peter Stine, a lot of critics pointed out that celebratory moves in sports may actually lack the qualifications to be considered a true choreography. While it may be reasonably assumed that a single move such as pointing up to the sky may be too insignificant to qualify as a complete choreography, a sequence of moves such as jumping into the air, spinning around and landing on a single foot may be long and complicated enough to meet the necessary qualifications. Interestingly, the European Court of Justice observed in the case of Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd[x]. that events in sports that have a unique and original character worthy of being protected alongside other forms of creative expression can be granted protection under Copyright law. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court observed that any expression that involves even a “modicum of creativity” shall qualify to be a work protectable by copyright thereby recognising that celebratory moves can be considered as choreography[xi].
Since a player’s celebratory moves take the form of a choreography and are unique and original expressions of their personality as well as passion for the sport, they fall within the purview of the Indian Copyright Act, and within the ambit of Copyright Law in general. Moreover, if dance routines and sequences can be translated into writing, as held in the Malini Mallya Case[xii], a sequence of moves adopted by sportspersons can also be reduced to writing thereby fulfilling both the narrow fixation test under the Indian law as well as the wider tests used in other countries. As a result, unique celebratory sports moves should be afforded copyright protection especially to protect the originality of well-known players from amateurs in the league and to expand the realm of Intellectual Property Jurisprudence in the country.
Is Copyrighting a Sports Celebration Worth It?
While there are definite positive aspects to copyrighting a unique sports celebration, its enforceability can pose a challenge especially considering the difficulty in determining the value of the expression which is a necessary requirement for the award of damages. Justice Holmes proposed a solution to this problem in the case of Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co[xiii], by observing that the public must be called to decide the value and public appeal of these moves rather than leaving it to persons strictly educated in the field of law and having little or no experience deciphering the true commercial value of creative expressions. However, the issue of proving actual damages will persist on the side of the registrant thereby diminishing the actual practical application of copyright registration for a unique sports move.
Conclusion
A thorough analysis of the copyright protection regime leads to the conclusion that celebratory moves in sports can be copyrighted because their protection is in consonance with the objectives of copyright law, and they generally fulfil the conditions of originality and fixation. Although athletes have previously shied away from copyrighting their moves, the large media coverage of major league sports now as well as the popularity and reputation of individual players, which can be marketed, may be the required nudge towards such a movement[xiv].
[i] Loren J. Weber, Something in the Way She Moves: The Case for Applying Copyright Protection to Sports Moves, 23 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 317, 318 (2000).
[ii] Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212-13 (2003).
[iii] The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, §2(h), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[iv] David Vaver & Pierre Sirinelli, Principles of Copyright Law, WIPO, (Jul. 2002), https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/844/wipo_pub_844.pdf.
[v] Anupama Mohan v. State of Kerala, WP (C) No. 22790 of 2015.
[vi] Academy of General Education, Manipal and Ors. v. B. Malini Mallya, Civil Appeal No. 389 of 2008.
[vii] The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, §2(f), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[viii] The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, §38), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[ix] The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, §2(qq), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[x] Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd. (2007) EWHC 3091 (Admin).
[xi] Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass ‘n, 480 U.S. 941 (1987).
[xii] Academy of General Education, Manipal and Ors. v. B. Malini Mallya Civil Appeal No. 389 of 2008.
[xiii] Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251-52 (1903).
[xiv] Hennry M. Abromson, The Copyrightability of Sports Celebration Moves: Dance Fever or just Plain Sick?, 14 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 571, 601 (2004).
Author: Rachel Thomas, Christ University
Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)
Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE
Join LinkedIn Group: Innovation & IPR
Aug 4, 2021 | Indian Patents Act 1970, IPR & Business
A patent is a statutory grant provided by the Government for novel, inventive and industrially useful inventions, including both products and processes. Getting a patent for an invention is an exciting time for an inventor, however, it is important to commercialise the patent so that the patented product becomes a source of revenue for the inventor and is able to see the market.
Most patents don’t generate money in their existence due to various reasons, such as:
- The patent might be too early to the market, thereby, it is hard for the inventor to find potential buyers.
- If the prototype or proof-of-concept is not ready, it becomes difficult to convince buyers because buyers would be interested in looking into scaling up the patented technology of the inventor.
- The patented technology may be complex and manufacturing the patented product might not be possible without seeking permission from other patent owners.
- If the patent is poorly drafted and claims of the patent specification are not strong, enforcement of the patent becomes difficult even if the buyer replicates the technology after seeking the permission of the patent holder.
Having a patent granted or registered imparts a set of right to the owner of the patent (also called patentee), opening up various options that a patentee can use in order to make money from the patent, such as:
- Patentees can manufacture and sell their patented product themselves or through joint ventures by partnering up with other companies.
- Patentees can license their patented products or technologies to companies for an exchange in lumpsum payments, royalties, or both, by permitting companies to manufacture, market and sell the patentee’s patented products or technologies.
- Patentees can assign or sell their patents to other entities or companies & earn money.
Patent licensing is the most used method for patentees to commercialize patent or technology to generate revenue. Patentee can license his patent and introduce it to the market to earn royalties and sign deals with investors and other companies. Let us now discuss the differences between patent licensing and patent assignment along with their pros and cons.
Patent licensing
The dictionary meaning of the word “license” is permission. By entering into a patent licensing arrangement, the patentee grants a license or permission to the company to manufacture, market and sell their patented products in specified markets. Licensing of patents and technologies is completed by executing a Technology or Patent License Agreement comprising of all terms and conditions which both parties must agree upon mutually. The term of the license may be the same or less than the term of the patent itself, as the term of a patent starts from the date of grant and lasts for 20 years forth. However, in most of the cases licensing does not just involve using a patent but also involves sharing of knowledge, experience and expertise that the patentee has. Therefore, even if the patent expires, the licensing relationship continues. By executing a license agreement, the patentees get to push their products into new markets by taking advantage of the manufacturing, marketing and selling expertise of the company or the licensee, and the company gets to use innovative and new technologies of the patentees.
In case of patent licensing, the patentee doesn’t transfer ownership of the patent to a company but rather a set of rights for a specific period of time. The patent license may be exclusive or non-exclusive in nature. In exclusive licenses, the patentee grants a license to only one party whereas if the agreement is non-exclusive, the patentee may grant it to more than one party.
Let’s consider a situation relevant to our current scenario. An independent researcher has invented a formula that can cure Covid-infected patients who contract the deadly black fungus disease. The patentee gets a patent for this formula, but due to a limitation of resources, he cannot afford production of the same. In such a case, he can either grant permission (i.e. license his technology) to any drug manufacturing company (exclusive licensing) or to several other drug manufacturing companies (non-exclusive licensing) to produce, distribute and sell the drug on a massive scale in return for some royalty fees. However, if the drug is vital for a greater public health concern, and if there is an increased demand in the market or the price of the drug is too high for the general public to afford, then the licensing will fall under a specific category called compulsory licensing in which government can license the patent associated with the drug without the permission of the patentee for large scale production and affordable accessibility.
In licensing, some important points to be considered by both parties are:
- Term of the patent
- Scope of rights granted
- Value of technology and royalty fees
- Stage of technology (idea, prototype, etc.)
- Market size
- Patent prosecution and renewal responsibilities
- Terms of termination
- Dispute resolution measures
- Governing laws
- Liabilities and indemnities
Patent assignment
Assignment means permanent transfer of rights. In this way, patent assignment is a kind of selling of the patent by the patentee to a company. When assignment occurs, amendments in the patentee name are also required to be done formally where patent assignment deed along with prescribed forms and fees is required to be submitted to the patent office. There are various advantages of patent assignment for the patentee. Upon patent assignment, the patentee usually gets a lump sum amount of money and is relieved of renewals and all other statutory obligations with respect to the patent. For the company or patent buyer, assignment is a simple and easy way to acquire a patent portfolio without performing in-house research and development.
Patent licensing and assignment are two popular options to exploit patent rights. Both have their own pros and cons and is hence advisable to seek expert advice before entering into any kind of agreement, to make good use of the opportunity.
Author Bindu Sharma
Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Raghu Ram V, Udit Sharma & Himani Jaruhar for helping me to finalize this article
Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)
Watch Video HERE
Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE
Join India’s largest Linkedin Group: Innovation & IPR
May 22, 2021 | Indian Patents Act 1970, IPR & Business
In this case, Sun Pharma Laboratories (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sun Pharma’), one of the leading Indian pharmaceutical company, came before court for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain BDR Pharmaceuticals (hereinafter referred to as ‘BDR’) from using trademark which is structurally and phonetically similar to that of Sun Pharma’s mark. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
- Sun Pharma is carrying business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products for several decades and in the year 2009 they came out with the product LABEBET. LABEBET contains LABETALOL salt which is primarily used for treating hypertension and related issues. They also got the mark “LABEBET” registered in class 5 on 30th October, 2009 and since then they have been using this mark to sell their product in the market.
- Sun Pharma while performing trademark search in the registry came across application of the mark “LULIBET” dated 30th May, 2016, which was used by the BDR Pharmaceutical to market their product. And thus, Sun Pharma brought a suit of injunction to restraint BDR from further uses the mark “LULIBET” which is deceptively similar to registered mark of Sun Pharma “LABEBET”.
Arguments by the parties
By Plaintiff i.e., Sun Pharma
- That Sun Pharma is registered proprietor of the trademark “LABEBET” in class 5 since 2009 for medical and pharmaceutical preparation and is entitled to exclusive right of using the same by the virtue of section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and that the action of BDR by using deceptively similar mark amounts to infringement by the virtue Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act.
- That the mark “LABEBET” when compared with the mark of BDR i.e., “LULIBET”, is structurally and phonetically similar.
- That both the products are sold in retail chemist shop, hence confusion and deception are likely to occur. Further, the possibility of patients with fungal infection consuming tablet of Sun Pharma cannot be ruled out. Thus, applying the test of imperfect recollection there is no doubt that public at large are bound to get deceived with such similarities.
- That Sun Pharma could not oppose the application of BDR when it was filed before Trade Mark Registry as the publication inadvertently escaped their attention, hence the present suit.
- That the contentions of BDR, that the marks are based on the salt/molecule from which product is formed, and that there are various other similar products available closely resembling to the mark of Sun Pharma against whom no action was initiated does not strengthen their arguments.
By Defendants i.e., BDR
- That BDR is the honest user of the mark, their mark is not deceptively similar to the mark of Sun Pharma, and that their mark was published in the Trademark Journal in the year 2016 which was not opposed by Sun Pharma and they cannot seek injunction for the same at the later stage.
- That the BDR derived the mark “LULIBET” from the salt/molecule upon which the product is based i.e., ‘Luliconzole’ which is used as lotion/cream for fungal treatment whereas Sun Pharma’s mark is based upon the molecule ‘Labetatol’ which is used as tablet/injection for curing hypertension. This, according to BDR form a crucial factor while comparing both the marks.
- That Sun Pharma did not coin the mark LABEBET, it is just based upon the salt/molecule from which product is derived and that there are large number of companies having trademark with the prefix LABE.
- That till the date of suit, no confusion was reported for the said marks and further the subsequent delay on part of Sun Pharma to initiate litigation shows that they are only attempting to stop progress of BDR Pharmaceuticals.
Issues
The main issues before Hon’ble Delhi High Court were:
- Whether the mark of BDR is structurally and phonetically with the mark of Sun Pharma?
- Whether the delay caused in filing opposition to the mark of BDR will deter Sun Pharma from claiming injunction?
Judgement
Court relying on various judgements held that:
“The marks have to be compared as a whole. They have to be judged by their look and their sound. The nature of customers who are likely to buy the goods has also to be considered in my opinion. If the two marks are compared as a whole the mark of the defendant is phonetically, visually and structurally, similar to that of the plaintiff. A person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection is likely to be deceived or confused. That apart as noted by the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Limited vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001(5) SCC 73) where the medicinal products are involved the test to be applied would be stricter than should be applied for non-medicinal products. In the case of non-medicinal products, a confusion only creates economic loss but in the case of medicinal products, it may have adverse consequences on the health and life of the individual”.
It was further observed that delay in objecting or delay in bringing an action would not be sufficient to deter Sun Pharma from claiming injunction. And as such medical products are involved in the case which are sold through retail medical shops, court is bound to adopt stricter approach and thus the claim of BDR that both the product is sold in different form and has different usage will not make them escape liability.
No solid grounds were ultimately found to refuse injunction and thus decree was made in favour of Sun Pharma.
By: Dhruv Dangayach, Ramaiah College of Law
Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)
Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE
Join Linkedin Group: Innovation & IPR
Whatsapp: +91 74838 06607
Apr 27, 2021 | Indian Patents Act 1970, IPR & Business, Trademark
In this case, Wyeth Holdings Corporation and Ors. (Hereinafter referred to as Wyeth), who is the registered proprietor of the mark “FOLVITE”, filed an opposition for registration of the mark, “FOLV” applied by Burnet Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as Burnet), on the grounds that Wyeth is the registered user of the mark “FOLVITE” and if registration is allowed to the mark of Burnet it will lead to infringement. Brief Facts of the case are as follows:
- Wyeth on 6th September 1946 made an application for registration of mark “FOLVITE” which was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and on 28th April 1949 got registration of mark “FOLVITE” in class 5 in respect of a “nutritional factor of Vitamin B Complex in the treatment and prevention of vitamin deficiencies and anemias”.
- Burnet, who initially adopted the mark “FOLACID” for its products, changed in to “FOLV” for which permission was granted by Drugs Control Authority in December 2000. Later Burnet sought registration of mark “FOLV” in class 5 which was proposed to be used. When advertised in Trade Marks Journal it was duly opposed by Wyeth.
- Subsequently, registration of the mark “FOLV” as proposed by Burnet was refused by Registrar of Trademark for which appeal was preferred by Burnet which was pending before Intellectual Property Rights Appellate Board at time of institution of this suit. Briefly stated, the grounds on which registration was refused by Registrar are as follows:
- Burnet’s mark is similar to that of Wyeth and there exists likelihood of confusion since Wyeth has acquired reputation in the market.
- The mark proposed to be used by Burnet is visually and phonetically similar to that of Wyeth.
- Wyeth being a long and extensive user has acquired a reputation in the market and the use of a deceptively similar mark was likely to cause confusion to the public at large.
And the suit at hand has been instituted for infringement and passing off.
Arguments
By Wyeth i.e., Plaintiff
- That the mark “FOLVITE” was invented by Wyeth, and the said mark has earned a substantial reputation in the Market. The mark of Wyeth when compared in whole with the mark of Burnet i.e., “FOLV”, it can be seen that Burnet has used a deceptively similar mark which is likely to cause confusion. Further, use of the mark by Burnet for similar ailment and purpose increases such a chance of confusion.
- That Burnet initially adopted the mark “FOLCACID” which they later changed to “FOLV” for which no proper explanation had been provided on affidavit, which puts a benefit of doubt on Burnet claiming to be the honest user of the mark “FOLV”.
- That the contention of Burnet that Wyeth had delayed in moving the court which indicates that Wyeth had acquiescence with the business and the mark of Burnet is not true. This could be inferred from the fact that Wyeth has not abandoned their right to sue for infringement or passing-off.
- Reliance was placed by Wyeth on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. {[2001]2SCR743} wherein it was held by the court that in case of deceptive similarity in medicinal products a strict approach has to be adopted to protect people at large from dangerous consequences of confusion caused due to such deceptive similarity.
By Burnet i.e., Respondent
That there is no phonetic or structural similarity between the mark of Burnet and mark of Wyeth as a registered trademark is not infringed, when a mark when used in relation to goods or services, indicates inter alia the kind, quality, intended purpose or another characteristic of the goods and services.
- That Wyeth had delayed in moving the court which shows that they have acquiescence with business and trademark of Burnet.
- That the mark of Wyeth and mark of Burnet is based on the common element ‘Folic acid’ and when a mark consists of a common element, which in case of Wyeth means “FOL” derived from ‘Folic Acid’ and VIT derived from ‘Vitamin’, greater emphasis has to be given on uncommon elements i.e., letter ‘E’ which cannot be made as a ground for instituting suit of infringement.
- That the judgement of Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v Cadila Pharmaceuticals (supra) is not applicable to all classes of medicinal products but only to those where both the drugs are meant for curing the same ailment but the compositions are different, but in the present case, both the composition of both the drugs are same.
Issue
The core issue before Hon’ble Bombay High Court was whether the trademark of Burnet i.e., “FOLV” is deceptively similar, phonetically and visually, to the trademark of Wyeth i.e., “FOLVITE”?
Judgement
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in this case, while citing various precedents observed that, while comparing the marks, they are to be considered as a whole, their structure has to be kept in mind and the court must look at the marks through the eyes of the purchaser having imperfect recollection. Based on such it was held the mark of Burnet, “FOLV” is deceptively similar to mark of Wyeth, “FOLVITE”
As to the contentions of Burnet, that the judgement in the case of Cadila Healthcare (supra) will not be applicable to present suit because the observation of Supreme Court must be confined to drugs having different composition, the court observed that the judgement has to be considered in its entirety, the ambit of judgement cannot be restricted by artificial process of construction, it was further observed by the court that:
“It would be inappropriate for the Court to apply a stricter standard only to a particular class of medicinal preparations. If the Court were to do this, it would have to make artificial distinctions from case to case based on whether or not the Court considers that a confusion arising out of the medicinal product in issue may or may not have disastrous effects on health and life. Such an approach is impermissible………Undoubtedly, where the competing drugs are meant to cure the same ailment but the compositions are different, mistaking one for the other may result in deleterious consequences. But, merely because the two competing marks are used for drugs with the same composition that would not justify applying a lower standard of scrutiny. For, even in such a case, the public interest lies in protecting the consumer against an unwary purchase of a deceptively similar product”
Further the argument of Burnet that, while comparing trademark more emphasis was to be placed on uncommon parts, was not accepted based on the following reasons:
- The mark “FOLVITE” does not have any English meaning, it is an invented term.
- Wyeth Mark is a composite mark; it is not open for Burnet to break down the mark. As long as mark is registered it is not open for Burnet to question the validity of registration by virtue of Section of 31(1) of the Act.
- The mark of Wyeth is registered as “nutritional factor of vitamin B”, hence it would be impermissible to equate Wyeth’s mark as preparation of ‘folic acid’ alone
Thus ultimately, it was held by Court that the mark of Burnet is deceptively similar to mark of Wyeth and that Wyeth has established prima facie case for grant of interim relief.
By: Dhruv Dangayach, Ramaiah College of Law
Please contact us at info@origiin.com to know more about our services (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Contract, IP Licensing, M&A of companies)
Subscribe to YouTube Channel HERE
Join Linkedin Group: Innovation & IPR
Whatsapp: +91 74838 06607
