In three applications for the grant of interim injunction Preeti
Suparia Co. prayed for an order to restrain Narain Dass Tulsani and
Ors. from producing, manufacturing, marketing selling or
advertising their confectionary using the range of impugned marks
or labels. Vide an interim order Tulsani and co-parties were
restrained pursuant to which they filed an application praying that
the Court vacate the ex-parte interim order, as also the restraint
order, on the ground that they were prior users of the mark.
Disposing off the matter is the Delhi High Court decision in
Preeti Suparia v. Narain Dass Tulsani [2008 (37)PTC 552
Preeti Suparia Co. averred that they had entered the
confectionery business in 2004 and presented sales figures for
three financial years to augment their stand. However, the Court
noted that no figures representing their expenditure on sales or
marketing to make the product popular amongst the general public
had been presented.
Tulsani and his co-parties strongly contended forth the Court
that they had been players in the confectionery business for over
four decades, since 1967. Further they stated that the marks in
contention had also been in use since then, and when they learnt of
such use by Suparia Co. they filed an FIR against Suparia's
distributors. The counsel also stated that just three days after
the filling of FIR Suparia had filed the present suit and obtained
an interim order concealing the existence of an FIR filed by
Tulsani and misrepresenting other facts.
Examining the various documents presented forth the Court, which
included its application to the TM Registry applying for a
trademark, bills etc, the Court stated that Suparia had not
produced any prima facie evidence to establish itself as a prior
user of the impugned marks. Some of the figures presented also
revealed that then sales were exceedingly higher than that of
Suparia Co. and that they were successful at establishing that
goodwill and reputation had been acquired. Suparia alleged the
documents produced by Tulsani to be fabricated, which was
contraverted by them stating them to be official documents. To this
allegation, the Court opined that sufficient evidence would have to
be appreciated and that no opinion could be expressed at the
present stage. The Court deducing the existence of a prima facie
case disposed off the interim applications and vacated the
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).