October 14, As is known, damages for patent infringement may be calculated using one of three calculation methods, i. Both decisions are favourable for the patentees. The result of this was that most often his calculations showed a loss in the end.
Connections at Firm 1. Damages in the nature of punitive or exemplary damages in such cases are also common. However, what is not common is the imposition exemplary damages in such cases of violation in India, exceeding INR 1 crore approximately USDGalpha Laboratories Limited and Another1.
We discuss the case, its findings and implications below. Interestingly, Galpha is also a manufacturer of generic drugs and had launched a similar product under the brand name Clodid-B.
Glenmark learnt of the similarities in the brand name and trade dress between its mark and Galpha's mark. To enforce its trademark rights, Glenmark instituted a suit against Galpha, for infringement and passing off of its registered trademark Candid B as well as for violation of its trade dress.
However, Glenmark gave instances of use of infringing trademarks by Galpha in the past. Glenmark also stated that Galpha had blatantly copied brand names of several other major pharmaceutical companies besides Glenmark.
In this regard, Glenmark relied upon the orders passed by various courts in trademark infringement cases against Galpha. Glenmark's submissions coupled with the orders passed by the courts against Galpha in relation to the trademark infringement cases, indicated that the present case was not an isolated case of trademark infringement by mistake but a repetitive practice of Galpha to adopt other companies' trademarks.
Thus, the High Court held Galpha to be a habitual infringer. Galpha manufactured several drugs mentioned in the said list. The High Court noted this and stated that the manufacture of spurious products by Galpha, coupled with the adoption of other companies' trademarks posed a serious threat to consumers; and as such, Galpha should be prohibited from indulging in such malpractices.
Further, the High Court observed that, "Drugs are not sweets. Pharmaceutical companies which provide medicines for health of the consumers have a special duty of care towards them. These companies, in fact, have a greater responsibility towards the general public.
These continuous infringing activities of Galpha were audacious and indicative of their complete lack of respect for the rights of the rightful trademark owners. The High Court also pointed out that "the conduct of this defendant shows that it has no regard or respect to the rule of law".
Along with the unlawful adoption of various companies' trademarks, Galpha was also found to be selling spurious products under the said brand names. This was held to be damaging to the brand names of the parties and also endangered the lives of consumers.
As such, a mere slap of damages would not have sufficed. Hence, the imposition of exemplary damages was the need of the hour. The imposition of exemplary damages by the High Court is a robust move with regard to the protection of the rights of the intellectual property owners.
This judgment sets a precedent and should act as a deterrent to those parties who callously adopt the trademark of other parties in order to ride on their goodwill and to amass unfair revenues. Twin Impex and Anr2 "Shalina v.
Twin Impex"which was also filed before the High Court against a different habitual trademark infringer. In this case, Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd "Shalina"a pharmaceutical company, had lodged a complaint against Twin Impex and Another "Twin Impex" for having copied substantial features of their trademarks and also for infringement of copyright and passing off in respect of their pharmaceutical products.
It was noted that Twin Impex had in fact replicated all the features of Shalina's trademarks and labels. The High Court concluded that the adoption of the word mark, art work, colour scheme, font style, manner of writing and trade dress of Shalina's marks by Twin Impex in relation to their products was fraudulent.
The High Court also observed that: Considering the consequences of the infringement by Twin Impex in Shalina v.
It is interesting to note that the presiding judge in both the cases was Hon'ble Justice Kathawalla which explains the similarities in ratio decidendi and the quantum of damages. Generally, these cases demonstate that the courts in India are considering the severe impact of dishonest adoption of trademarks in relation to public health in particular and the safety of consumers by way of imposing high costs, and in particular, exemplary damages, in order to curb such malpractices.
These judgments indeed will serve as a reminder to pharmaceutical companies to refrain from using infringing names and marks and sell spurious products under the same.
Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.Since Rational Recovery entered public consciousness, I have had the privilege of appearing on a good number – actually hundreds – of TV and radio torosgazete.com were tiresome affairs hosted by steppers, others were single-station shows, sometimes at late hours when most listeners were in dreamland, but some talkshows were actually .
Issues in American Copyright Law and Practice. by. Joseph F. Baugher. Last revised December 4, This work is issued under. a Creative Commons license.
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a free-trade agreement between Canada, the European Union and its member states.
It has been provisionally applied, so the treaty has eliminated 98% of the tariffs between Canada and the EU. The negotiations were concluded in August All 28 European Union . The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals.
  Over national constitutions mention the right to privacy. In addition, his litigation experience extends to protecting other key drivers of business success, including trademarks, trade secrets, cyber security and confidential information.
In an opinion issued on July 18, , the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) took the position that the European data protection directives do not allow for a direct disclosure of personal data of copyright infringers to copyright holders willing to start civil infringement proceedings.