Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav and TradeMark
Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav and TradeMark
What is ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’?
Owing to the celebration of the country’s people, vast culture and associated achievements on the occasion of the country’s 75th anniversary of independence, the government of India has launched a new program known as “Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav”. It is dedicated to the Indian people, who have been essential in bringing India thus far in its evolutionary path and possess the power and capacity to realize the vision of activating India 2.0, fueled by the energy of Aatmanirbhar Bharat (Self-dependent India).
Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav had begun on March 12, 2021, and will conclude a year later on 15 August 2023. This is a 75-week countdown owing to the 75 years of independence.
Aim of Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav
The ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’ has been initiated by the government of India with the sole purpose of creating a vision for India and its citizens in 2047. The Mahotsav is being commemorated on the basis of its five pillars: the 75-year struggle for independence, 75-year thoughts, 75-year successes, 75-year deeds, and 75-year goals. These pillars are intended to educate the next generation about the history and battle for freedom.
It would also motivate people to take action and accomplish their goal of an independent India. Amrit Mahotsav has been categorized as a celebration of our independence soldiers and for the occasion of the Indian liberation movement.
Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav and IPR
We are well aware about the current situation with the Indian IPR matters and a huge backlog pending for processing.
Due to large number of pendency of Trademark Applications before Trademark Registry, the Trademark Office is taking initiative to run a special drive for disposal of IP disputes wherein the office has directed the parties to dispose the pending opposition and rectification cases and also the parties who have already settled their cases amicably should notify the Trademark Registry vide a formal settlement of the dispute.
Pursuant to this, the registry has launched a link in order to report such settled cases as https://ipindiaonline.gov.in/trademarkefiling/OppositionSettlementRequest.aspx and this link is available from August 02, 2022 to October 02, 2022.
This is very beneficial for the trademark applicants because now they can submit the documents online without any further hassle of going to the trademark registry. Moreover, the disputes that have not been solved yet are required to be resolved using alternate mechanisms.
What is trademark opposition? How to settle Trademark Opposition?
A trademark opposition arises at the level when the registrar has approved or accepted the application for the following trademark and then the mark is advertised seeking public opposition and when a third party makes an objection to the application of the trademark which is similar to the existing trademark for the purpose of preserving the rights of the already registered trademark.
Final words
The ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’ event commemorates India’s tremendous progress during the last 75 years. This festival inspires us to rediscover our hidden capabilities and to take honest, collaborative action to reclaim our rightful place in the community of nations. We at MarkShield encourage parties under dispute to settle the matter amicably as this will not only help in reduction cost to the applicant’s spent on such disputes but also will corroborate in declination of pendency of trademark processing.
IPR/Trademark Consultant
Pre-institution mediation Mandatory Or Not
CHANDRA KISHORE CHAURASIA vs R.A PERFUMERY WORKS PRIVATE LTD
In a recent case,a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that pre-institution mediation is only required when the plaintiff does not seek urgent relief. The Court heard the Appeal filed against an order passed by the District Judge returning the plaint citing the lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The factual background of the case:
Asuit was filed by one Mr. Chandra Kishore Chaurasiya, a resident of Uttar Pradesh who is in the business of selling chewing tobacco under his registered trademarks “1192” and “JAGMAG 1192”, he also held copyright registrations as well. When he found out that a company R.A. Perfumery Works Private Ltd was using an identical mark “SIGNAL 1191”and was also imitating the packaging, artistic format and colour combination of his registered trademark, he filed a case against the Defendant company for all egedly copying the artistic work and colour combination of its packaging and intentionally choosing a similar trademark to that the Plaintiff Mr. Chaurasiya was the owner of. The plaintiff also accused the defendant of manufacturing a similar kind of product and the same packaging for the sole purpose of making easy money as the plaintiff had an established enterprise in the tobacco industry.
Decision of District Court (Impugned Order)
The defendant as a counter to the suit filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 for return of the plaint on two grounds, firstly that the Plaintiff has failed to establish the territorial jurisdiction and secondly, that the Plaintiffdid not comply with the requirements of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.2015, so the plaint is liable to be returned if the remedy of pre- institution mediation is not exhausted.
With regards to the first objection, holding that Plaintiff has prima facie failed to show any concrete evidence, the Plaint was returned by the Court. The District Court however, for the second objection observed that since the Plaintiff was seeking urgent relief, there was no need of undergoing pre-institution mediation.
Appeal against the Order
The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the order of the District Court for his return of Plaint. TheRespondent/Defendant again raised a cross-objection before the Appellate Court by contending that as per section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Appellant/Plaintiff is required to indulge in pre-institution mediation with the defendant or otherwise an application of exemption has to be moved for the same. It was contended by the Respondent that they are not questioning the provision with regards to urgent relief but stated that the classifying of a case as seeking urgent relief cannot be solely decided by the Plaintiff and therefore an Application for exemption had to be moved by the Appellant/Plaintiff.
Question before the Court?
- Extent of Rejecting a Plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC.
- Whether the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are mandatory?
Observations:
With regards to the rejection of plaint, the court observed that the examination for the purpose of an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC is limited to the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff. The High Court while relying on various judgments stated that what has to be seen is if prima facie from the plaint a cause of action has been established or not. It also stated that for Application for Order VII Rule 10, the Plaint has to be seen in demurrer and what has to be seen is that if the case is proved, the relief could be granted or not. So in conclusion, the court observed that since, the averments made by the Plaintiff with regards to the advertising, selling or soliciting to sell infringing goods within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court are clearly made out in the Plaint; the Application of the Defendant/Respondent is liable to be rejected.
- At the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, the court is not required to examine the merits of the averments made and to evaluate whether the plaintiff would be able to prove or establish the same. As noted above, for the purpose of an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered as correct
With regards to the Respondent’s cross-objection, the Court observed that the plain reading of the Section 12A states that the category of suits that require urgent relief aren’t in question nor is there an ambiguity as to which suit requires such relief. But it is clear that any suit that requires urgent relief is exempted from the remedy of pre-institution mediation. It was also observed that there is no requirement of moving an application in case an exception is applied. The court stated that firstly there is no provision for moving an application for exemption to be made in a suit which requires urgent relief and secondly if any suit doesn’t require such relief, it cannot be instituted without exhausting the remedy of Pre-Institution Mediation.The Court has no discretion to exempt a plaintiff from the applicability of Section 12A(1). The seeking of urgent relief is solely based of the Plaintiff only and cannot be decided by the court.
Decision:
The court disposed off the appeal and the cross objections raised by the Respondent by reversing the order of the District Court holding that the Appellant/Plaintiff had clearly made out territorial jurisdiction of the Court and reiterated that Pre-Institution Mediation is not mandatory in cases where the Plaintiff seeks urgent relief. The Court made it clear that no application for exemption from Pre-institution mediation is required under the Law, it is sufficient if the Plaintiff has made out explicit prayers for seeking urgent relief in the Plaint.
Apoorva Sharma is a 2022 Law Graduate from GGSIPU. With interest in Intellectual Property and related rights, Apoorva has gained work experience in IP Prosecution by mainly focusing on Trademark Applications and Opposition proceedings.
