Delay and laches many-a-times
lay the foundation for contending appeals. While the Indian law
allows an appeal to be filed purely on legal grounds, devoid of
facts and evidence, delay often is the only ground that is
raised in deciding matters in an appeal. The recent case of
Orchid Hardware (P) Ltd. v. Kich Marketing Pvt.
Ltd:& Anr. [2008 (37)PTC 266 (Del)] is one such
case in the point.
Kich Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,
globally reputed manufacturers of knobs, fittings, accessories,
bathroom accessories, trade in the name KICH. They aver that
they got their design registered, and alleged Orchid Hardware
of having copied nine such designs. They stated that the same
was done with the aim to mislead the public and they even
utilized the code numbers, so as to enable passing off their
goods as that of Kich. On this basis, an ex parte injunction
order had been granted earlier. Restraining Orchid from
selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or
indirectly dealing in the products, the order also prevented
them from dealing in all products with Kich' registered
designs. They had appealed against this order, which was
Orchid submitted that the
earlier non-hearing of his application had caused him
substantial miscarriage of justice. The precedent of
Venkatasubbah Naidu v. Chellappan & Ors.
AIR 2000 SC 3032 was also cited, whereby it was held, that
apart from vacating, modifying or granting an injunction, the
Court may consider action against an erring judicial officer.
The counsel for Kich refuted that Orchid itself was to be
blamed for the lapses and delay it had entailed. They stated
that the submission of a bulky set of documents requiring
verification, only a day before the hearing had entailed the
delay. In response to this, the counsel for Orchid stated that
the very nature of the matter required collection of evidence
and that the same process had taken time.
The Court found that Kich could
not have been blamed for the delay in the matter, and stated
that while Orchid was collecting all the documents it wanted to
present, neither the Court nor Kich could be blamed. The appeal
was dismissed ordering Orchid to pay costs to the Court.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).