A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that it is necessary for the party suffering an order interdicting it from doing any act in relation to the subject matter of the suit, to ensure that it does not commit any other acts which could be construed as violating the court order.
“It is not open for the party to try and overcome court orders by continuing its infringing activity in another form or manner. As an illustration, if the court finds that the defendant’s trademark infringes the plaintiff’s trademark and interdicts the defendant from using it; it is not open for the defendant to slightly modify or tweak its trademark and continue using it. It is incumbent upon the defendant to ensure that it does not use any trademark that can be construed as infringing a plaintiff’s trademark,” the bench stressed.
The Court further defined what constitutes a patentable subject matter under Indian law. It said that a mere discovery of a new use of a known process of a product would not be patentable under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.
“However, a known product, which is specifically modified and configured to provide a specified result of an economic value, would be considered to be patentable as it would be a new product,” the Court clarified.
Source: Barandbench
