The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Court”) has, by its order dated September 16, 2009, in the matter of Bajaj Auto Limited (“Appellant”) Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited (“Respondent”) ¹, directed that all courts and tribunals in India must hear matters pertaining to trademarks, copyright and patents on a day-to-day basis and give their final judgment within four months from the date of filing of the suit. The said judgment will clearly usher in a new era of urgency in matters pertaining to trademarks, copyright and patents.

The Appellant filed a suit before the Madras High Court alleging infringement of its patent No. 195904, under the provisions of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”) ². The Learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction.³

The Respondent filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which appeal was allowed.⁴

Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Court by way of special leave.

The Court expressed its unhappiness on the progress of the matter, which had been filed in December 2007, had been kept pending before the Single Judge without even the written statement being filed.

The Court, inter alia, observed that suits relating to patents, trademarks and copyrights remain pending for a number of years and litigation between the parties is fought mainly on the temporary injunction.

Referring to observations set out its earlier judgment dated September 07, 2009 passed in the matter of M/s. Shree Vardhman Rice & Gen Mills vs. M/s. Amar Singh Chawalwala,⁵ the Court directed all courts and tribunals in India to, inter alia, strictly comply with the provisions set out in Order XVII Rule 1(2) ⁶ of the Code of Civil Procedure in matters of patents, trademarks and copyrights and conduct the hearing on a day-to-day basis and give the final judgment within four months from the date of filing of the suit.

In the present matter, the Court directed the Respondent to file their written statement before the closure of the Madras High Court for ensuing vacation. Further, all prior interim orders were vacated and substituted with fresh directions including the appointment of a receiver. The Respondent was permitted to sell its products but was required to maintain accurate records/accounts of all sales, whether in India or exports. The Court did not make any observations on the merits of the matter.

The said judgment clearly redefines the manner in which courts in India are expected to dispose of matters pertaining to patents, trademarks and copyrights. By this judgment, a clear emphasis is provided on quick disposal of the underlying suit rather than mere grant of interim relief to protect the interest of the parties pending such disposal.

Interestingly, whilst the said judgment pertains to matters of patents, trademarks and copyrights, it remains to be seen whether the ratio of the said judgment is extended to other forms of intellectual property such as designs, geographical indications etc.

What remains to be seen, is how the parties and courts gear themselves to prepare for final hearings of these matters, which will require tremendous preparation in the form of, inter alia, availability of court infrastructure, availability of expert witnesses (an integral component of patent matters) and whether the courts and tribunals need to set up separate benches to hear these matters on a day to day basis.

-     Sahil Kanuga & Gowree Gokhale