Vior (International) Ltd. and Ors. v. Maxycon Health Care Private Limited and Ors.

In 2018, the Delhi High Court in the case of Vior (International) Ltd. and Ors.vs. Maxycon Health Care Private Limited and Ors., the Delhi High Court pronounced a judgement holding that the right of the Plaintiffs was violated by the defendants and that the same amounts to infringement. Reliefs were granted to the plaintiffs under Section 48 of the Patents Act as well as Section 51 r/w Sec 14 of the Copyright Act 1957. The court held that the defendants infringed the rights granted to the plaintiffs under Sec 8 of the Patents Act by unauthorized manufacturing as well as selling of the patented products as well as copying the content of the plaintiff’s website under the Copyrights Act.

Facts of the Case:

A Switzerland based Company, Vior (international) Ltd.  (Plaintiff 1) Exclusively owns the Patent No. 221536 registered in India. The patent is a process on Ferric Carboxymaltose which is a novel water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex of iron (ferric) and oxidation product. Its process of preparation is novel as well. The patent is used in the treatment of iron deficiency through intravenous treatment when oral iron preparations fail to act or cannot be administered. The patent is valid for a term of 20 years from 20th October 2003 in India. Vior International granted a license to the Plaintiff 2 who is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff No. 2 was asked to manufacture and commercialize the patented product.

The defendants misrepresented themselves to be the licensee of the plaintiff 1 through their website MaxyConHealthCare.com to manufacture and commercialize the said patent. Further, the defendants copied the content as well as write-ups available on the plaintiff no. 2’s website.  Such activities on the defendant’s part amounted to unlawful enrichment as well as dilution of plaintiffs brand image. An ad-interim injunction was issued by the court against the defendants but they continued their infringing activities. Thus, the court proceeded against the defendant’s ex parte.

Thus, the issues that were before the court were:

1. Whether the defendant’s acts which involved the manufacture, as well as the sale of the patented products, amounted to an infringement of the plaintiff’s rights?

2. Whether the defendant’s act of misrepresenting himself as the defendant’s licensee for the impugned patent amounted to an infringement of the plaintiff’s patent rights?

3. Whether the act of the defendant which involved copying the plaintiff no. 2’s website would amount to infringement of Plaintiff No. 2’s copyright?

Contentions of the Plaintiff

The plaintiffs put forward the contention that the defendants are unconstitutional, oppressive as well as arbitrary. The plaintiff’s relied upon the evidence as presented by the sole witness, Shri Pankaj Ahuja. Further, the plaintiff’s also relied upon the judgement of the Delhi High Court as in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited, 2014, claimed damages of up to INR 1,00,01,00. The plaintiffs further claimed punitive damages based upon the judgement of Jockey International Inc&Anr v. R. Chandra Mohan &Ors. where the Hon’ble Court opined that the person who voluntarily chooses to stay away from court proceedings must not enjoy the benefits of the same.

Ratio Decidendi

The learned court took under consideration Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1971 and held that the acts of the defendants where they deal with impugned API is clearly related to the plaintiff’s patented products and their acts clearly infringed rights of the plaintiff under the section. Further, the court examined the issue of copying of literary works and held that the acts of the defendants of blatantly copying content from the plaintiff’s website show that such adoption is mala fide with a clear intention on the defendant’s part to save himself from labour. Further, the misrepresentation on the defendant’s part to be an authorized licensee of the Plaintiff No. 1 amounted to a tort of malicious falsehood.

The court also relied on the judgement of Rookes v Barnard in 1964 and awarded damages in such a way so as to not only compensate the plaintiffs for the loss sustained by them but also to impose punishment on the defendants further vindicating a distinction between a wilful and an innocent wrongdoer.

The Decision of the Court

Thus, the court held that the acts of the defendants amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s patent and copyright and in view thereof, imposed damages worth INR 10,00,000 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by the reason of infringing trade dress, registered marks and for the violation of the interim order which was earlier passed by the Hon’ble Court.

Author: Maahi Mayuri, Student of New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Pune, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at niharika@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010