Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing Hindusthan Lever Limited vs Godrej Soaps Limited And Others on 11 April, 1996

Standipack Private Limited & Another vs M/S. Oswal Trading Co. Ltd. on 26 May, 1999

The Calcutta High court also in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd. & Others; has held that the American Cynamid principle does not govern the field of law in India and it was observed that the plaintiff in a patent case must show a prima facie case of an infringement and further that the balance of convenience or an inconvenience is in his favour. It was also held that in a patent case the onus of showing a prima facie case justifying the grant of an injunction is a heavy one and it is comparatively easy for the respondent to establish a defense sufficient to prevent the grant of such an injunction.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. vs Techfab India And 5 Ors. on 25 April, 2008

41. While rejecting the interim injunction application preferred by the appellant, the Learned Single Judge has given several reasons, which inter alia, include that in the suit for infringement of the patent, the plaintiff must make out a strong prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction and that when serious controversy exists as to whether or not the invention made by the plaintiff is a new or it involves inventive skills, the Court should not grant injunction in favour of plaintiff and that if the patent is new and its validity is not established in judicial proceedings and the defendant's endeavour is to show that the patent ought not to have been granted, ordinarily, the Court should not issue a temporary injunction. While declining the interim relief to the appellant, the Learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgment reported in (1) in the case of Manika Thevar v. Star Plough Works (2) in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Godrej Soaps Ltd. (3) in the case of Standipack Pvt. Ltd. v. Oswal Trading Co. Ltd. (4) in the case of Ram Narayan Kher v. Ambassador Industries, PTC (Suppl) (1) 180 (Del.). The Learned Single Judge has further observed that when the validity of the patent has been challenged on the ground that patent has been obtained by fraud, there is no new invention of a new product, but it is simply an extension of what was earlier used or was known to the world, then, the extra burden lies upon the plaintiffs to show to the Court that their work or invention of the product is not simply an extension. The Learned Single Judge has further observed that when the defendants come out with a case that patent is illegal and deserves to be revoked, then, obviously there would be a triable issue in favour of the defendants and not in favour of the plaintiffs. With regard to the process of the plaintiff's product, the Learned Single Judge has observed that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to say that the method of weaving is the only statement in the application, but, they can refer to any other method of manufacture. According to the Learned Single Judge, weaving is a different process than the process of intermeshing and textile experts know that what is weaving and what is the difference between weaving and intermeshing. The defendants are not using any weaving process in manufacturing the gabions, their process is certainly intermeshing. The Learned Single Judge was also of the view that if the gabions made of different materials were used to avoid or protect soil erosion for more than 7,000 years, then the innovation of a gabion cannot be said to be a new inventive invention, no research was required to be made in something which was publicly known. It is further recorded that rope gabions and polymer gabions are being used in Maharashtra and Bihar since 1991 and 1987. If Nylon Crates and gabions are used by the Governments for long many years and are being manufactured by Netlon and other companies, then the plaintiff would not be entitled to say that they have separate existence of a new product which was not known. The Learned Single Judge further took the view that patent may not be granted in favour of some one, who very cunningly make an application to the authority for grant of patent without even disclosing that what is new in its item and how it was not known to the public previously. It is further observed by the Learned Single Judge that Nylone, which is also used for manufacturing the gabions, is a strong polymer/material and if that use is known to the world, then, simply by replacing nylone by some other synthetic material, the plaintiff would not be allowed to claim that they have invented a product. The Learned Single Judge has also given specific finding to the effect that the defendants are successful in showing that their product is something different than what has been registered in favour of the plaintiffs. The product manufactured by the defendants, in the considered opinion of the Learned Single Judge, is not same or similar to what is patented in favour of the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the Learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the product of the plaintiff is neither new nor a result of the research, nor it is cheaper, nor it is something, which, for the first time, came into existence and was not known in the field.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - K A Puj - Full Document

Novartis Ag, Rep. By It'S Power Of ... vs Adarsh Pharma And Anr. on 28 April, 2004

Therefore it is clear from the above that the learned Judge has never said that if the patent is of a recent origin and if it is less than six years old, no injunction at all should be granted. On the other hand, the learned Judge had recognised the power of the Court to grant an interim order, if facts made available warrant such an order being passed. The learned Judge relied upon the statement of law in Terrells on Patent, 9th Edition that a patentee should show undisturbed possession and enjoyment of the patent at least for a period of six years before the controversy arose. The learned Judge had also said that Courts have always taken a patent as a recent origin one, if it is less than six years old. Nowhere, this Court had said that when a patent is of a recent origin, the Court should never grant an injunction. In the case on hand, I have already held that prima facie materials are in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs. I have also already noted that the defendants started marketing their product, which is shown to be an infringement, only after the plaintiffs' started marketing the product in India. Therefore, on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above and taking into account the facts available in this case as noted earlier, the plaintiffs have definitely made out a prima facie case for confirming the order of injunction already granted in their favour. Balance of convenience also stands heavily loaded in favour of the plaintiffs and if an injunction is not granted, they would suffer an irreparable loss. I have already stated on the element of public interest, if at all it arises on the facts of this case, that there are provisions in the Act itself for the Government of India to take care of it and do remedial measures. The arguments advanced by Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran learned counsel that the plaintiffs are guilty of coming to Court with unclean hands, which would disentitle them from getting the relief of injunction, on facts, do not appeal to me at all. The fact that the second plaintiff invited one or more of the defendants to come to the negotiating table and the challenge to their "EMR" is pending on the Delhi High Court (these facts are not disclosed either in the plaint or in the affidavit of the plaintiffs) would not by themselves amount to the plaintiffs suppressing material facts, which, if disclosed, would enable this Court to approach the problem from a different angle. There is no doubt that any relevant material touching upon the controversy between the parties, which may or may not influence the decision making process of this Court, if burked, may be put up against the party guilty of such suppression. The two instances referred to above, in my considered opinion, would have no relevance at all in deciding the controversy between the parties. A number of case laws, other than the ones referred to in this order, have been cited before this Court by the learned senior counsel on either side. Inasmuch as, I have arrived at my conclusions on prima facie materials and on the point of law decided, supported by the judgments referred to in this order, I have not set out in detail the other case laws and considered it in this order. Consequently, I am inclined to make absolute the order dated 20.1.2004 granting injunction as prayed for in all the original applications and as a result thereof, all the original applications would stand allowed as prayed for and all the applications filed to vacate the injunction would stand dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mariappan vs A.R.Safiullah on 30 June, 2008

19. The learned senior counsel for the 4th respondent/4th defendant also drawn to the attention of the Court to the decision reported in AIR 1985 Delhi 136 - M/s.Niky Tasha India Private Ltd., v. M/s.Faridabad Gas Gadgets Private Ltd. wherein the same question has been reiterated and so also the decision reported in AIR 1996 Calcutta page 367 Hindusthan Lever Limited vs. Godrej Soaps Limited and others. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment reported in AIR 2000 Delhi page 23  M/s. Standipack Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. M/s. Oswal Trading Co., Ltd. wherein it has been laid down that when an application filed for revocation of patent and questioning the validity of patent is pending, injunction cannot be granted. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that as per Section 23 of the Designs Act, 2000, provisions of Patent Act pertaining to validity of patents apply to the Designs Act and consequently the provisions therein had case laws on that subject can be applied to the Design registered by the applicant/plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 7 - P K Misra - Full Document

M/S.Tvs Motor Company Limited vs M/S.Bajaj Auto Limited on 18 May, 2009

(d) The learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1996 Cal 367 (Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Godrej Soaps Limited and Ors.) wherein a passage from the decision of an English case reported in (1972) 1 All ER 1023 (Hubbard Vs. Vosper) of Lord Denning is quoted which is to the effect that while considering the grant of an interlocutory injunction, the Judge should look at the whole case and that he must have regard not only to the strength of the claimant but also to the strength of the defendant.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Galatea Ltd vs Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation on 26 March, 2018

In   this   connection   reference  may   be   made   to   a   decision   in  Bishwanath   Prasad   v.   Hindustan   Metal  Industries,   reported   in   (1979)   2   SC  511 at p.521: AIR 1982 SC 1444 : 1979  All   LJ   290   at   p.296,  Hindustan   Lever  Ltd.   v.   Godrej   Soaps   Ltd.,   reported   in  AIR   1996   Cal   367   at   p.381   and   M/s.  Niky   Tasha   India   Pvt.   Ltd.   v.   M/s.  Faridabad   Gas   Gadgets   Pvt.   Ltd.,  reported   in   AIR   1985   Delhi   136   at  p.138.
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 1 - R M Chhaya - Full Document
1   2 Next