The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan held that while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts were expected to intervene if there was a self-evident error that could be demonstrated without lengthy examination of the evidence.
The High Court opined that the Court can use jurisdiction only when there is gross failure of justice.The High Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court or re-appreciate the evidence based on which the Tribunal/Court passes an order, especially when they are technical in nature.
Brief Facts:
The trademark 'VEGA ASIA' was registered on a 'proposed to be used basis' on 08.02.2002 and officially registered on 31.03.2005. The Respondent, on the other hand, applied for the trademark 'VEGAH TABLETS' on 24.04.2002, claiming usage since 01.04.2002, and it was registered on 19.12.2003.
Both trademarks were registered in Class 5 for pharmaceuticals and medicinal preparations. Both parties filed rectification applications for their respective trademarks before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereafter referred to as “IPAB”), along with pending suits in this Court and the Bombay High Court.
The IPAB ordered the removal of both trademarks from the register, which the respondent challenged concerning 'VEGAH TABLETS' in the Bombay High Court. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the IPAB's order, which was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to this appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that the Respondent was merely a licensee and not the proprietor of the trademark 'VEGA', which was cancelled by the IPAB in 2011. It was further contended that the Respondent intentionally adopted the trademark 'VEGA' with a rocket device to trade upon the Appellant's trademark.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that they were the prior adopter and users of the mark 'VEGA', having adopted it in 2000 and continuously using it since 2001. It was stated that the rights of a prior adopter are superior to those of a registered proprietor. Further, that the Appellant was a subsequent adopter of the mark 'VEGA ASIA' and that the claim based on an assignment agreement is misconceived.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that when exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court was expected to intervene only if the error was self-evident and could be demonstrated without extensive examination of the evidence. However, if there were two possible inferences or views, the Court, in its supervisory capacity, should refrain from interfering. The jurisdiction was to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there was a clear miscarriage of justice. The Court was not supposed to function as an appellate court and re-evaluate the technical evidence on which the tribunal or court's order was based.
The High Court acknowledged that the subject trademark was similar to the mark used by the respondent, and if used together, they would likely deceive the public and cause confusion. It has been consistently recognized that in the field of medicinal products, special care must be taken to avoid any possibility of trademark confusion. The rights of a prior adopter were deemed superior to those of a registered proprietor of a trademark. The issue examined by the IPAB and the Single Judge was whether the respondent was a prior user of the mark 'VEGA', which would render the appellant's mark liable for removal from the register.
The High Court held that the IPAB's order was deemed valid since the Respondent established prior use of the mark based on substantial and credible evidence. The Appellant's allegations that invoices were fabricated lacked substantiation. The Delhi High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, concluded that there was no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice in the IPAB's order.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court upheld the impugned judgement of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: VEE Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v Hab Pharmaceuticals and Research Ltd
Case No.: Letter Patent Appeal No. 548 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. S.K. Bansal and Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advs
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Ms. Archana Sahadeva and Ms. Anjun Saxena, Advs.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com :
Picture Source :
