Alleged Patent Infringement On Sanitary Product: Karnataka High Court Makes Temporary Injunction Absolute

The Karnataka High Court recently made absolute, an ex-parte temporary injunction restraining Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited from manufacturing/ selling a sanitary undergarment, used by women during the menstrual cycle, patented by the plaintiff namely Yashram Lifestyle. A single-judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh said,"Having considered the material available on record and also the pictures which have been shown...and also taking note of multi-layered specifications and all the essential ingredients present in the plaintiffs' patent, the claim of the plaintiffs are found similarity in the product of the defendant which amounts to infringing the statutory right granted in favour of the plaintiffs under the patent."It ordered thus:"I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have made out a case to grant the temporary injunction and ad-interim temporary injunction is already granted and the same is in force, hence, this Court only has to make it as absolute instead of vacating the ad-interim temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is allowed and the temporary injunction granted earlier is made as absolute." Plaintiff's Submissions:The plaintiff M/S. Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt. Ltd, had approached the court claiming that its patent on a sanitary undergarment namely "Cotton Sensation Stay Dry Period Panty", "Period Panty" was being infringed by the defendant. It was claimed by the plaintiff that it has been granted patent for a period of 20 years from 2009 and hence it is in force till 2029. Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa for the plaintiff argued that defendant was selling certain products by using an identical mark and claiming similar features as are offered in the plaintiff's product. Defendant's Submissions: Advocate George Joseph, appearing for the defendants, claimed that tThe product sold by the defendant is a distinct and different product from the plaintiffs' patent and hence there cannot be any infringement. "The essence of the plaintiffs' invention as highlighted by the plaintiffs is not in the creation of a leak-proof product, but in the creation of flaps that allows the wings of a sanitary pad to be folded inwardly thereby preventing chafing and staining. The defendant's product does not have any flaps. There is absolutely no novelty or invention in the plaintiffs' patent. Similar products have been patented/manufactured/sold for many decades. Similar products are also being manufactured/sold by various companies across the world including India." Further, it was said, "The defendant has been selling the product since 2018. The patent was granted on 06.02.2019. The patent is relatively new and unestablished. While granting the temporary injunction, the plaintiffs have to establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience, but balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendant because if the defendant is prevented from selling the product, it would lose out on its market share and the sales momentum it could achieve in the interregnum." Court's Findings: The court said, "Having considered the products of the plaintiffs and the defendant except for the flaps, all the specifications and designs are similar and also the said product is manufactured in order to give protection during the menstrual cycle preventing leakage of the fluid but having the similar specifications. When such being the case, if the product of the defendant is marketed, it causes hardship to the plaintiffs and hence, there is a balance of convenience that lies in favour of the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs in the year 2009 itself sought a patent with the specification in respect of the period panty. No doubt, the same was given in the year 2019. But the fact is that the defendant also marketed the very same product recently." Further, it took into consideration the material available on record and also the pictures shown, and also took note of multi-layered specifications and all the essential ingredients present in the plaintiffs' patent. It then observed, "The claim of the plaintiffs are found similarity in the product of the defendant which amounts to infringing the statutory right granted in favour of the plaintiffs under the patent." It added, "Crotch region in the plaintiffs' product...also present in the defendant's product. In the crotch region, except the flaps, the fabric body consists of three of more layers in the plaintiffs' product and four layers in the defendant's product. When such similarities are found in the product of the defendant and the plaintiffs having the patent from the year 2009 and granted in the year 2019, it affects the statutory right of the patent of the plaintiffs. The defendant also did not dispute the fact that the crotch region of the defendant's product also having the layer which is made of ...

Alleged Patent Infringement On Sanitary Product: Karnataka High Court Makes Temporary Injunction Absolute

Mustafa Plumber

Tags