Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 17 To June 22, 2024

Nominal Index [Citation 293 - 310]Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Gleck Pharma (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 293Pidilite Industries Limited v. Astral Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 294Saket Abhiraj Jha v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 295Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary v. Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 296Chemco Plast Applicant/Defendant In the matter between: Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemco Plast 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 297XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 298Azhar Basha Tamboli v. Ravi S Gupta & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 299Ramesh Ratan Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 300KN Surendran Pillai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 301Film & Television Producers Guild of India (FPGI) ) v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 302Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 303Bombay Iron And Steel Labour Board v. State Bank of India 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 304ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. v. UOI 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 305Piramal Enterprises Limited v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 306Godrej Projects Development and Anr. v. Zakir Ramzan Qureshi and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 307 Patil Samgonda Namgonda v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 308Shripad Dwarkanath Gupte and Ors v. Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 309CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. M/s. SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 310Reports/JudgmentsSimilar Trademark For Drug Treating The Same Ailment But Having Different Composition From Already Registered Trademark Is Deceptive: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Gleck Pharma (OPC) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 293A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, held that structurally & phonetically similar trademark can't be registered for drug treating similar ailment but having different composition from already registered mark, as it may create confusion for consumers leading to potential side effects.Bombay High Court Grants Temporary Injunction In Favor Of Pidilite In Infringement Suit For Cement Container DesignCase Title: Pidilite Industries Limited v. Astral LimitedCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 294The Bombay High Court granted ad interim injunction in favour of Pidilite Industries Limited (Pidilite) restraining Astral Limited (Astral) from infringing Pidilite's registered design of Coex plastic containers of its M-SEAL PV SEAL products.Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla held, “the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (a) of the Interim Application. If the injunction as sought in prayer (a) is not granted, then grave loss, harm and prejudice would be caused to the Plaintiff as the Defendant would then continue to use the impugned container with the design of the Plaintiff.”The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff's container design is a mere trade variant of a known design and cannot be protected under Section 19(1)(c) of the Designs Act. The court found this argument to be incorrect as the Defendant failed to show any prior design similar to the Plaintiff's design.The court outlined three factors to determine if an article's design is a trade variant: the nature and size of the article, its utilitarian nature, and whether only minor changes are possible, which may still be substantial enough to render the design novel.The court found that the Plaintiff's container design was not significantly similar to any known designs or combinations thereof. The features of the Plaintiff's design were substantially different and not minor or inconsequential, the court said. Additionally, the Defendant, being in the same trade, had not produced a container with a similar design until recently, supporting the originality of the Plaintiff's design, the court held. “The Defendant has failed to demonstrate that there is any prior design or one very similar to it that precedes the Plaintiff's design or that the Plaintiff has merely created a trade variant”, the court observed.Bombay High Court Calls For Robust Mechanism To Impose Costs For Misuse Of Judicial Process In Rape Cases Stemming From Failed RelationshipsCase Title: Saket Abhiraj Jha v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 295Highlighting that rape cases stemming from failed relationships between adults waste the valuable time of both the police and the courts, the Bombay High Court called for a robust mechanism to impose heavy costs on individuals who misuse the judicial process.Justice Pitale highlighted the recurring nature of such cases in urban areas like Mumbai, which leads to wastage of valuable time which can be otherwise utilized in investigating serious offences. “With passage of time, the alleged victim and the accused come together, having resolved their differences and then...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 17 To June 22, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags