interim injunction - The Legal Chamber

Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency

4Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, a suit alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights inherently contemplates urgent interim relief. The Court held that mere delay in filing the suit does not negate urgency, as each ongoing act of infringement causes immediate and irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing market deception also factors into the assessment. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a Danish company named Novenco Building and Industry A/S, held patents and design registrations in India for its industrial fans sold under the brand ‘Novenco ZerAx’. It had entered into a dealership agreement with respondent No. 1, Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in 2017. The appellant later discov...

Supreme Court Clarifies: Licensee Must Pay Arrears, Not Liquidated Damages, at Interim Stage

In a suit for eviction under a lapsed license agreement, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot grant liquidated damages as an interim measure under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. However, it upheld the application of Order XV-A CPC (Bombay Amendment), directing the licensee to pay ascertained arrears and ongoing license fees with annual increments, failing which the defense can be struck off. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Leave and License Agreement executed on 08.10.2013 between the appellant licensors and the respondent licensee for 36 months, from 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2016, with a 7% annual increase in license fee. Clause 19 stipulated liquidated damages of Rs. 10,000 per day if the licensee failed to vacate upon expiry. After the license period lapsed, ...

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling on Trademark Law :No Monopoly on Common Words

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that deceptive similarity must be assessed holistically, not by dissecting composite marks. The common element "PRIDE" was generic and non-distinctive. No likelihood of confusion was found, as the overall impression, trade dress, and dominant features of the rival marks were distinct. Interim injunction was rightly denied. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, are manufacturers and distributors of alcoholic beverages, holding registered trademarks for 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM’S' whiskies. They filed a suit against the respondent, Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging that his use of the mark 'LONDON PRIDE' for whisky, along with its packaging and trade dress, constituted tra...