Sarthak Kaushal
Indore Institute of Law
“Hearing of matters pertaining to IPR should be done on day to day basis”
Case Note:
Citation:MANU/SC/1632/2009
Decided on:16th September 2009
Court: Supreme Court
Quoram: Markandey Katju and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.
Introduction:
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India has set down rules and guidelines to be followed by all the lower courts and tribunals to carry on a speedy trial of the matters pertaining to Intellectual Property Rights and deliver their judgment quickly.
Facts:
A suit was instituted before the single bench of Madras High Court by the Bajaj Auto Ltd. against the infringement of its patent no. 195904, which related to twin spark plug engine technology in the motor vehicles under the Indian Patents Act, 1973 against TVS Motors Pvt. Ltd. The appellant asserted for the grant of permanent injunction for infringement of monopoly rights provided by the Indian Patents Act, 1973 against the respondent.
The appellants made an application for interim injunction against the respondents restraining them from further infringing the patents of the appellant during the pendency of the suit.
An interim injunction was passed by the learned judge of single bench restraining the respondents from any further infringement of the appellant’s patent and thereby, the launch of TVS Flame was stalled.
The respondents filed an appeal before the divisional bench of the Madras High Court against the impugned interim order which was duly allowed by the divisional bench.
An SLP (Special Leave Petition) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Court of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly.
Further, it was contended that no infringement of the patent was done by the defendant and that they were facing several consequences and threats due to delay in launching of the motorbike TVS Flame.
In the meantime, a suit of defamation was also filed by the respondents against the appellant in the Bombay High Court.
TVS Motors also filed an application to strike down the patent granted to Bajaj Auto seven days prior to the launch of TVS Flame.
TVS Flame was launched in December 2007 even after the ongoing proceedings, without any changes in the disputed design.
Issue(s):
Whether the injunction granted against the respondent was necessary to protect the rights of the applicant under the statutory provisions when the validity of the patent application is still in question?
Judgment:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India criticized the current practice of courts in matters pertaining to trademark, copyright and patent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced its decision during the pendency of suit for permanent injunction. The lower courts and tribunals were provided with various guidelines which were to be followed during the trial of cases relating to trademark, copyright and patent.
The interim order passed by the learned single judge of the Madras High Court was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was further held that respondents have the right to sell their product and can continue selling on the condition that they maintain proper record of India and export sales, a receiver was also appointed for this purpose. The judgment was based on the observation that infringement of patent has said to have happened when there are no improvements and exact design or technology has been copied, whereas in this case, substantial improvements were made by the respondents. The judgment referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to reach this decision was Improver Corporation and ors. v. Remington Consumer Products.[1] However, improvements cannot be claimed by the respondents until proper price has been paid to the plaintiff for using their design.
Further it was observed by the Hon’ble Court that in such cases where there is infringement of patent, copyright or trademark, the parties always continue with the intention to obtain interim injunction, which is not a healthy practice and this should not be the case.
Matters pertaining to Intellectual Property Rights involve very wide aspects and sincere efforts shall be made towards speedy disposal of such cases. In this regard, the Hon’ble Court provided that the matters pertaining to Intellectual Property Rights should be resolved within the timespan of two to three months, and the hearing should be done on day to day basis. All the lower courts and tribunals were directed to comply with this direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, strictly and punctually.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the judgment passed in the case of Shree Vardhman Rice & Gen Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala,[2] held that:
“Proviso (a) to Order XVII Rule 1(2) C.P.C. states that when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for exceptional reasons to be recorded by it the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. The Court should also observe Clauses (b) to (e) of the said proviso.
In our opinion, in matters relating to trademarks, copyright and patents the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1(2) C.P.C. should be strictly complied with by all the Courts, and the hearing of the suit in such matters should proceed on day to day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit.”
Analysis:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this particular landmark case issued directions for all the lower courts and tribunals for speedy disposal of matters pertaining to Intellectual Property Rights in the courts of India. The dispute over the twin spark plug technology, which involved two major automobile companies in India, went on for more than two years and both the parties were locked up in this patent dispute. Due to such long time both the parties suffered substantial damage. Keeping this in mind, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed the view that the matters of trademark, patents and copyright are pending for years and the parties to the suit are fighting only with a view to obtain temporary injunction, which should not be the case. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that such matters should proceed on day to day basis and should be concluded within four months from the date of filing of the suit. All the courts and tribunals were directed to follow the orders faithfully and punctually.
REFERENCES:
[1] Improver Corporation and ors. V. Remington Consumer Products, [1990] F.S.R. 181
[2] Vardhman Rice & Gen Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala, MANU/SC/1680/2009
