SupremeCourt

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Guest Post: Exide v. Exide: Too much Exidement?

Posted on 11:13 PM by Unknown
Our regular guest blogger, Arun Mohan, a practising IP lawyer before the Madras High Court has sent us this very interesting post analysing in detail the recent Exide judgement of the Delhi High Court and its implications for Indian businesses. The case took fifteen years to come to a resolution and even that happened only after one set of lawyers were changed by one of the parties. It helped that the presiding judge was Justice Valmiki Mehta, an exceptional judge known for his 'no-nonsense' attitude in the Delhi High Court. I think this judgment is a very interesting case and highlights some of the challenges of the Indian market. 

Exide v. Exide: Too much Exidement? 

By Arun Mohan

The Delhi High Court has passed another interesting order under the 1958 Act on the issues arising between the domestic and international proprietors of marks. The judgment can be accessed over here.

The facts in the case briefly put are: 

a. An American company (ESBC) was incorporated in the year 1888 and a subsidiary UK company (CESCO) in the year 1891 to manufacture and sell Exide batteries. 

b. In 1947, due to competition issues the cord between the two companies was snapped and the UK company became the individual proprietor of the mark in the UK. 

c. Around such period, CESCO set up factory in India and became proprietor of the mark EXIDE in India. 

d. CESCO also set up 2 group companies in India through which it manufactured and sold batteries. 

e. CESCO and its group companies was taken over by one M/s Chloride Group Limited. 

f. M/s Chloride Group Limited assigned the rights in the mark EXIDE to the plaintiff herein in 1978 and the TM registry records were amended in 1980 to reflect the same. 

The defendant herein is the successor of the American company ESBC, which sought to market EXIDE batteries in India vide a joint collaboration with Tudor Batteries, Spain. The defendant was undisputedly the owner of the EXIDE marks in several countries. The defendant sought to enter the market in or about 1995 citing various governmental barriers as “special circumstances” i.e. it did not abandon the mark as per the Hardie Trading case, to explain its delayed entry and its continued right over the mark EXIDE in India. The plaintiff moved to restrict them from doing the same in 1997. 

The first claim made by the defendant was that of suppression and fraud committed by the plaintiff before the TM Registry. This Order held that such suppression, even if proven would not interfere with the substantive rights of a proprietor and also that Civil Courts do not have jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a mark when a prayer is made for infringement by a registered proprietor. In coming to this conclusion the Court also considered that the defendant had not moved the IPAB till date to challenge the plaintiff’s registration and nor had it sought stay of proceedings under Sec 111. Therefore, the Court held the validity of the plaintiff’s marks to be final. 

In examining whether the defendant company did in fact give a “common law license” to the plaintiff, and if whether the plaintiff’s rights were relatable to the defendant, the Court refreshingly considers relevant commercial scenarios viz., 

a. The defendant did not have any controlling stake over the plaintiff or its predecessors after the split between the UK and US companies. 

b. The defendant never received any consideration from the plaintiff as royalty 

The Court observes that the American company would not have allowed its “most valuable” property to vest with the plaintiff without any control, and therefore there can be no common law license inferred. This observation recognises just how important trademarks are to companies, and that companies if serious about their marks, would be vigilant in maintaining their rights. 

In deciding on special circumstances, the Court observed that there were no direct or indirect bars to import of batteries, and neither was the same demonstrated by the defendant for the purpose of qualifying as ‘special circumstances’. The Court further observed the lacunae in providing financial analysis and statements by the defendant for establishing such special circumstances. 

The Court also held that there was no question of acquiescence by the plaintiff, as the defendant did not sell any goods in India nor did any special circumstances exist. 

The order concludes holding unequivocally in favour of the plaintiff stating that customers and trade would associate EXIDE batteries only with the plaintiff and its predecessors, and it is therefore entitled to injunct the defendants from selling EXIDE batteries in India. 

This judgement is rather simple, stating that the plaintiff being the prior user of the mark in India and the defendant failing to establish any relationship, would be entitled to an order of injunction against the defendants, irrespective of the defendants rights in other countries. Such orders deciding in favour of the Indian proprietor vis-a-vis international proprietors are not unusual and I have worked on a few myself including in this case available over here. 

The fly in the ointment comes in the recent DB order of the Delhi High Court in the Samsung case. The Court therein allowed the sale of imported Samsung products subject to appropriate disclaimers and representations. Could that order be extended to this case? What would be the consequences if I were to import genuine Exide batteries from America, and disclaim that these are imported batteries and have no relation to the Indian company? As per this order, it would appear to be an infringement, whereas the Samsung order offers a glimmer of hope. I do hope this gets appealed to see a further judicial consideration of this issue as such simplistic dichotomy of trademark rights between India and the rest of the world is no longer commercially relevant. The Court also did not consider the trans-border reputation of the defendant, which strangely enough does not appear to have been even argued by the defendant. I would have imagined that this would be the cornerstone of their argument. The case also overlooks the trade’s view of the mark, and most of the conclusions seem to be based on arguments and pleadings. What this case does immediately do is to shake up all holding companies into reviewing their terms with their subsidiaries, distributors and licensees in India.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in trade, Trademark | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • IPAB on Payyannur Ring
    [*S lightly long post] Background: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“ IPAB ”), in its recent order in SubhashJewellery v. Payyan...
  • Guest Post: Intermediary liability in defamation cases - Parle, Mouthshut & Visakha cases to clarify the law
    Chaitanya Ramachandran, who has blogged for us previously over here and here , has sent us this excellent guest post analyzing the extent of...
  • Delhi HC rejects the "Hot News" Doctrine: A Summary
    The applicability of the Hot News doctrine was rejected recently in a landmark ruling delivered by Justice Bhat of the Delhi HC. This post i...
  • IP Research Assistant position at IIT, Madras
    Feroz Ali Khader, MHRD IP Chair at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, is looking for research assistants to work on various is...
  • Satyajit Ray's sketches and copyright controversies
    A copyright row appears to have started between the Satyajit Ray Society and the Delhi Art Gallery, that is organising a countrywide exhibit...
  • Dorling Kindersley v. Sanguine Technical Publishers
    A recent Delhi High Court order passed on 21 January, 2013  with respect to copyright licensing has come to our notice. An analysis of the j...
  • Call for Papers: IIT Bombay and MHRD jointly announce the 2nd International Conference on Management of Intellectual Property and Strategy
    The readers may be interested to know that the Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management of IIT Bombay is geared up to host, in collaboration w...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution
    In the UK, the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society is an organization run and owned by writers that collects money due to its mem...
  • Aaron Swartz, RIP
    See Cory Doctorow's eulogy here Some of us in India may not have heard of Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old activist who was heavily involved ...
  • Thalappakatti biryani trademark row
    The southern district of Dindigal in Tamil Nadu occupies a special place in the hearts of biryani lovers. In the late 1950s, one Nagasamy N...

Categories

  • 126 (1)
  • 3(d) (4)
  • 3(f) (1)
  • 3(i) (1)
  • 3(k) (2)
  • Academic Writing (1)
  • access (10)
  • access to food (1)
  • access to health (3)
  • AIA (1)
  • AIDS/HIV (3)
  • Antitrust (2)
  • Bajaj v LML (1)
  • Basmati Row (2)
  • Biological Diversity (5)
  • Biologics (2)
  • biopiracy (4)
  • biotech (7)
  • Bollywood (25)
  • Broadcasters Rights (5)
  • Budget (1)
  • business method patent (2)
  • Call for papers (2)
  • Cipla (2)
  • Comparative Advertising (4)
  • Competition law (8)
  • Compulsory Licensing (27)
  • condonation of delay (1)
  • Conference (4)
  • Constitution (12)
  • Contracts (1)
  • Controller's decisions (8)
  • Copyright (112)
  • Copyright Amendment Bill 2010 (23)
  • copyright board (4)
  • Copyright Exceptions (6)
  • copyright office (1)
  • Copyright Rules (2013) (5)
  • Copyright Societies (9)
  • Counterfeiting (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • Cross Retaliation (1)
  • csir (4)
  • d (1)
  • D.U. Photocopy Case (16)
  • Darjeeling Tea (3)
  • Data Exclusivity (2)
  • Database (1)
  • DCGI (2)
  • decompilation (2)
  • defamation (9)
  • Designs (3)
  • Designs Act (3)
  • Differential Pricing (2)
  • Dilution (1)
  • Disabilities (3)
  • Disability (2)
  • DMCA (2)
  • Doha Declaration (1)
  • Domain Names (2)
  • Draft Policy of the Indian Government (2)
  • DRM (1)
  • Drug Regulation (7)
  • education (12)
  • Enercon (1)
  • Enforcement (1)
  • EU (2)
  • ex parte (2)
  • exhaustion (3)
  • Exhaustion of Rights (2)
  • Fair Dealing (8)
  • Fair Use (11)
  • Federal Circuit (1)
  • Fees (3)
  • FICCI (7)
  • FRAND (2)
  • free trade agreement (3)
  • FTA (3)
  • G.I. Registry (4)
  • gene sequences (3)
  • Generic medicine (4)
  • Geographical Indication (14)
  • Gilead (1)
  • Glenmark (5)
  • Gopika (34)
  • Guest post (11)
  • guidelines (1)
  • GWU-CII (1)
  • Herceptin (1)
  • hot news (3)
  • ICANN (1)
  • incremental innovation (1)
  • independence (1)
  • india (5)
  • Indian Government (1)
  • Indian patent litigation (27)
  • Indian Pharma (35)
  • Injunction (10)
  • Innovation (7)
  • INTA (1)
  • Intermediaries (10)
  • internet (11)
  • Internet Access Providers (IAPs) (5)
  • Internet Censorship (7)
  • IP scholarship (3)
  • IP aware (4)
  • IP Course (3)
  • IP Education (1)
  • IP Policy (11)
  • IP update (4)
  • ip writing competition (1)
  • IPAB (34)
  • ipchair (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPRS (5)
  • IT Act (1)
  • Journal (2)
  • judicial independence (3)
  • Jurisdiction (1)
  • Kruttika (4)
  • Legal Education (3)
  • Legal Research Tools (1)
  • Legal Scholarship (2)
  • library (2)
  • Licensing (7)
  • Madhulika (20)
  • mathematical methods (1)
  • Media law (3)
  • medical method (1)
  • Merck (4)
  • mhrd ip chair (1)
  • Microsoft (3)
  • Middle Path (1)
  • Moral Rights (2)
  • Movies (18)
  • musical work (2)
  • nanotechnology (1)
  • Natco (3)
  • natco defamation suit (5)
  • natco vs bayer (4)
  • need for transparency (1)
  • Novartis (8)
  • Novartis patent case in India (11)
  • NPEs (2)
  • nujs (1)
  • NUJS Conference (2)
  • Obituary (1)
  • obviousness (7)
  • Off-Topic (2)
  • online course (4)
  • Open Access (6)
  • Open Source (2)
  • Opposition (3)
  • Parallel Imports (4)
  • Parliament (1)
  • passing off (5)
  • Patent (52)
  • Patent act (10)
  • patent agent (5)
  • patent agent exam (9)
  • patent agent exam qualifications (3)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • Patent Licensing (2)
  • Patent litigation (2)
  • Patent Office (19)
  • patent pool (3)
  • Patent Prosecution (7)
  • Patent rules (2)
  • Patent Strategies (8)
  • Patents (9)
  • pegasus (1)
  • Personality Rights (1)
  • Pfizer (1)
  • Pharma (18)
  • Piracy (5)
  • plagiarism (3)
  • Plant Variety Protection (2)
  • post grant (1)
  • Prashant (2)
  • Preventive Detention (1)
  • Price Control (6)
  • prior publication (1)
  • Privacy (3)
  • Prizes (1)
  • public health (3)
  • Public Interest (4)
  • Publicity Rights (4)
  • Publishing (3)
  • radio (2)
  • Rajiv (18)
  • Rectification Petition (2)
  • Rejection (1)
  • research (3)
  • reverse engineering (2)
  • revocation (4)
  • rip (1)
  • Roche (2)
  • Roche vs Cipla (1)
  • Royalty (2)
  • RTI (2)
  • Scholarship (4)
  • section 16 (1)
  • Section 3(d) (7)
  • section 8 (6)
  • shamnad (11)
  • Shan Kohli (4)
  • Shouvik Kumar Guha (30)
  • Smartphones/Tablets (2)
  • Social Innovation (1)
  • Software (10)
  • software enforcement (3)
  • software patent (3)
  • Special 301 Report (1)
  • Spicy Tidbits (6)
  • spicyip (1)
  • SpicyIP Accolades (1)
  • SpicyIP Announcements (9)
  • SpicyIP Case (1)
  • SpicyIP Cases (3)
  • spicyip commiseration (1)
  • SpicyIP Events (11)
  • SpicyIP Fellowship (5)
  • SpicyIP Guest Series (22)
  • SpicyIP Interview (2)
  • SpicyIP Jobs (4)
  • SpicyIP Jobs/General (2)
  • SpicyIP Review (1)
  • SpicyIP Tidbits (11)
  • SpicyIP Weekly Review (27)
  • Statutory Licensing (1)
  • STI Policy 2013 (4)
  • Sugen (3)
  • Supreme Court of India (5)
  • Swaraj (19)
  • Tarnishment (1)
  • Technology (6)
  • Technology Transfer (5)
  • TKDL (5)
  • TPP (1)
  • trade (4)
  • Trade Secret Protection (1)
  • Trademark (59)
  • Trademark dilution (1)
  • Trademark Registry (9)
  • Traditional Knowledge (7)
  • Transparency (5)
  • treaty (1)
  • trial (1)
  • tribunals (2)
  • TRIPS (11)
  • UK (3)
  • unfair competition (5)
  • UNFCCC (1)
  • Universities Research and Innovation Bill (2)
  • US (1)
  • US Patent Reform (1)
  • US Supreme Court (3)
  • viva (3)
  • WIPO (5)
  • Working a Patent (2)
  • Workshop (4)
  • writ (1)
  • WTO (1)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (364)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (41)
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ►  March (66)
    • ►  February (40)
    • ►  January (49)
  • ▼  2012 (131)
    • ►  December (29)
    • ►  November (42)
    • ▼  October (50)
      • 5 Reasons Why Course Packs are Legal in India
      • Academia struggles to pay up as Journal prices soar!
      • First sale doctrine under threat in US
      • Guest Post: Ownership and Assignment of Indian Pat...
      • Supreme Court grants BharatMatrimony stay against ...
      • IP in the multiverse: Law of Superheroes
      • Govt. of India follows up on SpicyIP reporting – r...
      • Karnataka High Court temporarily restrains German ...
      • Copyright Aggression vs Educational Access: The "G...
      • Rebutting arguments against multiple copyright soc...
      • Mapping out the future of Indian copyright societies
      • Add a disclaimer says Supreme Court: Bata has happ...
      • Spicy IP Weekly Review (October Week 3)
      • Delhi University Restrained for Alleged Admission ...
      • Appeal to Publishers to Withdraw Suit Filed agains...
      • September 2012: Controller's decisions at the IPO
      • The ‘Register of Owners’ for future copyright soci...
      • Bata sho(o)ed out of Court - No defamation says De...
      • Sugen’s desperate attempt to save its Sunitinib pa...
      • Internet Fraud: Bogus Open Access Journals
      • Guest Post: Bayer-Natco decision TRIPS Compliant?
      • Guest Post: ‘Xerox’ is not Generic.......Yet?!
      • Spicy IP Weekly Review (October Week 2)
      • Roche vs Cipla: A Patent Disappointment?
      • Ever participated in a clinical trial? Perhaps.
      • An anonymous comment in response to the DU Campaig...
      • A test case for India’s new safe harbour provision...
      • Karnataka High Court quashes Controller General’s ...
      • The perils of selective journalism
      • Defensive Patent Licensing: A way out of the Paten...
      • Delhi High Court seeks to break the Myth of 'Break...
      • DU Photocopy Case: Who's Afraid of Copyright?
      • Guest Post: Exide v. Exide: Too much Exidement?
      • Guest Post: The New India Guidelines on Similar Bi...
      • Intellectual Property Rights: Infringement and Rem...
      • More controversy during appointments to IPAB: Delh...
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review (October Week 1)
      • SC on the new drug policy
      • India signs Nagoya protocol ahead of Hyderabad CBD...
      • WIPO defers PPI observer status
      • The need for iron-clad enforcement of Section 8 di...
      • NBA set to prosecute Monsanto’s Indian subsidiary:...
      • Breaking News: Delhi High Court recognizes interna...
      • Breaking news: Cipla succeeds in revoking Pfizer /...
      • TKDL poised to draw first blood before Indian pate...
      • ICANN set to change the topography of the internet
      • Call for Papers: Christ University, Law Journal
      • A Glass and a Half full of Purple Joy: Cadbury win...
      • EBC granted injunction against Lexis Nexis for inf...
      • Novelty of Design: Tarun Sethi v. Vikas Budhiraja
    • ►  September (10)
Powered by Blogger.