AJAY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Vs. SHIRO KANAO OF IBARAKI CITY
LAWS(DLH)-1983-4-36
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 19,1983

AJAY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
SHIRO KANAO OF IBARAKI CITY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

HYDERABAD CHEMICAL SUPPLIES LIMITED VS. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2006-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR BANKA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
BILCARE LIMITED VS. THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-233] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAM INDIA LTD. VS. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. [LAWS(IP)-2008-11-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.RANGANATHAN - (1.)These two appeals can be disposed of together as they are directed against the common judgment of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing two petitions (C. O. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1974) moved by the appellant under Section 64 of the Patents Act (39 of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.)The appellant, Ajay Industrial Corporation, is a registered firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of reinforced plastic hose pipes. The respondent, Shiro Kanao, is a Japanese national represented in these proceedings by a firm called Depenning and Depenning, Calcutta. He is the proprietor of two patents which have been registered with the Controller of Patents of India, having his office at Calcutta. One bears Patent No. 124526 granted on 19-12-1969 and relates to the "method and apparatus for continuously producing a spiralled tube of plastic resin" and is the subject matter of C. O. 2/74. The other Patent No. 114519 granted on 6-12-1967 is in respect of "flexible plastic hose" and is the subject matter of C. O. 3/74. The applications filed by the appellant on the original side of this Court seeking the revocation of these patents granted in favour of the respondent are stated, at the Bar, to be the counter-offensive 1983 Delhi/32 XI G 20 to a suit on .behalf of the respondent seeking injunction and damages against the appellant for "infringement of his patent rights." The suit is said to be pending in a Court at Ahmedabad.
(3.)The grounds on which the revocation of the two patents is sought are set out in somewhat involved and cumbrous language in paragraph 7 of C. O. 2/74 and para 6 of C. O. 3/74 but have been put forward in much simpler terms at the time of arguments before the learned Judge and before us. The short point urged so far as patent No. 124526 is concerned is that it is not workable, does not achieve any efficiency or labour-saving and cannot be described as an invention since spiralled tubes of plastic resin have been known and been in production for a long time, much prior to the date when the respondent's patent was registered. In regard to Patent No. 114519, again, the appellant's case was that flexible reinforced plastic pipes or hoses have been known to the trade as well as the public for a long time prior to 6-12-1967 and there was no "invention" in regard thereto for which the respondent could have sought or obtained a patent. More particularly, it was alleged, such flexible reinforced plastic pipes have been the subject-matter of several patents granted earlier and that, on this short ground itself, the respondent's patent should be revoked. These applications have been rejected by .the learned Judge and hence these appeals.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.