Page 47 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016

APPELLATE COURT NOT TO INTERFERE WITH

A SINGLE JUDGE’S ORDER SUPPORTED WITH

COGENT REASONS dated 20th February 2016 against which an appeal
was filed by the Defendants.
In a legal tiff between ABB India Limited and
Inphase Power Technologies and others, the
Appellate Court at the High Court of Karnataka
at Bengaluru refused to vacate injunction orders The Defendants/Appellants argued that STATCON

passed against the Defendants (Inphase Power is a generic term. Since the Plaintiff has not sought

Technologies and others) by the trial Court. to register the same, no injunction can be granted

with regard to the trade name ‘STATCON’. With

In 2015, ABB India Limited had filed a suit against regard to the Patent, the Defendants argued

Inphase Power Technologies and others praying that there is a huge difference in the machines

for: manufactured by the Plaintiff and Defendants. The

a. injunction restraining the Defendants from Defendants’ machine contains a harmonic filter,

misappropriating or distributing the Plaintiff’s which is absent in the Plaintiff’s machine, apart from

confidential information; a large number of other differences in the products

b. an order of injunction restraining the manufactured by the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

Defendants from infringing patent No.206766;

c. an order of injunction restraining the The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding

Defendants from using the Plaintiff’s trademark that the contentions regarding the trade name

‘PQC STATCON’; and, per se are contrary to the Appellants’ conduct

d. a direction to pay damages for breach of trust of applying for a trade mark by the name ‘PQC

and infringement of patent No.206766. STATCON’. The Appellate Court also disagreed

with the Appellant’s assertion on difference in

The Plaintiff also filed interim applications seeking products and held that unessential features in an

certain interim orders. infringing article or process are of no account.

Further, the Court found that the harmonic filter is

The Plaintiff had contended that either the part of the Plaintiff’s product as well.

Defendant(s) are former employees of the Plaintiff

or they are the company incorporated by said The Court also relied on various judgements

former employees. Whilst they were in service, to hold that once the Court of the first instance

they were entrusted with significant amount of exercises its discretion to grant or refuse relief

information relating to the Plaintiff’s products and of temporary injunction and where said discretion

business. The Plaintiff claims that patent number is based on objective consideration of the material

206766 covers a product which is in dispute. It placed before the Court and is supported by

had been alleged by the Plaintiff that the Defendant cogent reasons, the Appellate Court will be

Company is offering a product called ‘STATCON’ loath to interfere, simply because on a de novo

described in its brochure as IPC 150-SCOM which consideration of the matter, it is possible, for the

incorporates the Plaintiff’s patented invention Appellate Court to form a different opinion on

without authorization. This product, as has been issues of a prima facie case, balance of convenience,

argued by the Plaintiff, is deceptively similar (visually irreparable injury and equity.

and phonetically) to the Plaintiff’s trade mark ‘PQC

STATCON’. The Court held that the opinion of the Court has

to be prima facie at the interim sage and the Plaintiff

The Trial Court granted a temporary injunction has been able to put forth that prima-facie case. In

to the Plaintiff against the Defendants vide order view of the same the grounds urged on behalf of

Patents & Design | 47