Contributed by Mohit Kohli
Singh & Associates
R/APPEAL NO. 38 of 2019
Patent Applicant/ Plaintiff: Agarwal Deokinandan Gopiram
Respondent/Defendant: Jagdamba Textiles Pvt Ltd.
Decision on: February 25, 2019
Background: Applicant applied for patent in year 2005, Patent no. (2135483) granted on July 06, 2009. Patent is for a machine used for fabric dyeing.
Proceedings under Additional district judge: Patent Applicant filed a case against unauthorized use of patent to which respondent tried to distinguish the working of 2 machines. The additional judge ruled in favor of the respondent. To which applicant filed an appeal in Ahmedabad high court.
Appeal: Applicant stated that the invention is exclusively associated with them and being in the same trade, Respondent shall no doubt be well aware of the invention of the said machine and yet they have copied the invention. Therefore, a legal notice was served upon the respondents to cease and desist from using the said patented machine. Applicant also added that as far as the balance of convenience is concerned it is in the favor of a patent owner because there is limited time to use the patented work i.e. 20 years against which 12 year have already been expired on the date of the suit. If the injunction is denied, the applicant’s invention and efforts, time and money invested will go in vain.
A scientific officer was appointed to prepare a report on the 2 machines. It was pointed out that the defendant’s machine is not the exact replica of the patented machine and it had 31 dissimilarities. But the defendant was unable to dispute the uncommon features as referred to the patented fabric machine. The court emphasized that the real test would be whether there exists uncommon feature which has been recognized by the Controller of Patents in the invention after following due procedure.
The counsel of patent applicant also highlighted that in absence of the injunction, other users of the similar fabric machine may be encouraged to violate the patent which will cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff.
Court order: The order was passed on February 25, 2019. The court said, “In view of the above prima facie observations, injunction is required to be granted and the court below was in error of jurisdiction when it failed to appreciate the case in the above perspective. This court, therefore, passes the order in following terms:
- The impugned order dated 06/10/2018 passed below Exhibit 5 in Trade Mark Suit No.9 of 2017 by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad at Mirzapur is stayed.
- Defendant opponent herein is restrained from using the uncommon features of the patented fabric machine of the plaintiff as indicated in greater detail in this order. Such restraint shall be carried out by the defendant within a week from today.”
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.