Application for interim injunction against alleged copyright infringement and trade dress violation. Court granted interlocutory relief, making previous ad-interim injunction absolute pending constitution of arbitral tribunal within 30 days.
Interim injunction granted by earlier order made absolute pending arbitration proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Original Application No.74 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 24.11.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Original Application No.74 of 2021
Bahola Labs,
a partnership firm, having its registered office at Homeo House, 30, Bakthapuri Street, Kumbakonam – 612 001, and branch Office at 2, Tiger Varadachari Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.
... Applicant
/versus/
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Prop.BHL Homeo Labs, S17/95 A-14B Laxmighat (cantt.) Nadesher, Varanasi – 221 002, and at 214 Rudra Apartments, Near Shivpur Thana, Shivpur, Varanasi – 221 003. ... Respondent
Prayer: Original Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockist, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner committing acts of copyright infringement by using, in the course of trade, labels/artistic works which are a substantial reproduction of Applicant's copyright in the artistic work or by using any other substantial reproduction of the applicant's labels/artistic works or in any other manner whatsoever pending the arbitration proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 7
Original Application No.74 of 2021
For Applicant : Mr.R.Sathish Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Swaroop
O R D E R
The applicant seeks to restrain the respondent from, directly or
indirectly, infringing its copyright in the trade dress, label, or artistic work relating to two of its products, namely, MOTHER TINCTURE and DILUTION.
Agreement dated 03.08.2015 (the Agreement). In terms thereof, the respondent was appointed as the Distributor for marketing, distributing and selling the products of the applicant in the Territories, as defined therein. The term of the Agreement was for a period of 15 years. By Clause 13 of the Agreement, during the term thereof, the respondent agreed not to directly or indirectly compete with the applicant by marketing, promoting, distributing or selling or dealing with products which are similar to that of the applicant. Clause 14 of the Agreement recorded that all Intellectual Property Rights, as defined therein, relating to or connected with the products are owned exclusively by the applicant. By such Clause, the respondent was restrained from directly or indirectly infringing, impairing, adversely affecting or jeopardizing the Intellectual Property Rights of the applicant either during the term of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 7
Original Application No.74 of 2021
the agreement or thereafter. On the allegation that the respondent had contravened its contractual obligations and also infringed the copyright of the applicant, the Agreement was terminated by notice dated 19.01.2021. By such notice, the applicant also invoked the arbitration clause and sought to appoint an Arbitrator. The present application is filed in these facts and circumstances. By an earlier order of this Court dated 12.02.2021, an ad-interim injunction was granted. Such order was extended, thereafter, from time to time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 7
Original Application No.74 of 2021
products in question are homeopathic medicines. The trade practice is to use the colour blue in relation to the product DILUTIONS and the colour Green in relation to the product MOTHER TINCTURES. The third contention on behalf of the respondent is that there is no copyright in a label. By adverting to Section 13 read with Section 2(c) of the Copyrights Act, 1957, the respondent contends that the label does not qualify either as a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Even with regard to passing off, he submitted that an action for passing off is in exercise of common law rights. Since it is an action in tort, such rights do not flow from the contract and are, therefore, not arbitrable. By relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Lifestyle Equitis CV v. Q.D.Seatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd and Ors., 2018 (1) CTC 450 and , in particular, paragraph No.5(t) thereof, it is contended that the validity of an intellectual property is not arbitrable.
5 . By way of a brief rejoinder, it is contended on behalf of the applicant that a label qualifies as an artistic work since it involves artistic craftsmanship. In addition, it is contended that the validity of the copyright was not questioned either in response to the applicant's notice or in the counter affidavit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 7
Original Application No.74 of 2021
necessary nor desirable to record definitive conclusions on the rival contentions especially with regard to the validity of the copyright or other Intellectual Property Rights, as defined in the Agreement. For interlocutory proceedings, it is sufficient to note that the applicant's claim in such regard is not baseless. This is an aspect that should be examined and determined by the duly constituted arbitral tribunal. It is open to both parties to raise all contentions and objections before such arbitral tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 7
Original Application No.74 of 2021
market, distribute and sell the applicant's products. By the Agreement, the respondent agreed not to compete during the term of the Agreement and also acknowledged that the applicant is the owner of all Intellectual Property Rights, as defined therein, in connection with the products. At least for interlocutory purposes, therefore, in these facts and circumstances, the applicant has made out a case to make the interim order absolute pending arbitration proceedings.
allowed by making the interim injunction granted on 12.02.2021 absolute but subject to arbitration proceedings. The applicant is directed to take steps to ensure that the arbitral tribunal is constituted and enters upon reference by taking concrete measures in such regard within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
24.11.2021
Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. bsm/rrg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 7
Original Application No.74 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.,
bsm/rrg
Original Application No.74 of 2021
24.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to an absolute injunction restraining the respondent from alleged copyright infringement pending arbitration.
Whether the dispute regarding copyright validity is arbitrable in the context of an interlocutory application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lifestyle Equitis CV v. Q.D.Seatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd and Ors.Referred¶27
Lifestyle Equitis CV v. Q.D.Seatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd and Ors., 2018 (1) CTC 450
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bahola Labs
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
