Published on: November 19, 2023 at 22:59 IST
The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that the Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, do not prohibit the inclusion of additional documents after the filing of a reply or counter-statement in response to a rectification petition.
Justice C Hari Shankar noted that the IPD Rules lack any provision restricting the acceptance of supplementary documents, unlike the Original Side Rules, which explicitly address this matter.
The court emphasized that amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure under the Commercial Courts Act apply to original petitions, including rectification petitions under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
The court further pointed out that the IPD Rules do not mandate filing documents with respective pleadings, leaving room for the application of Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act.
The ruling allows respondents to submit supporting documents at any stage, ensuring a fair and comprehensive response to rectification petitions. The judgment arose from two IPR suits filed by Bennet Coleman and Company Limited against E1 Entertainment Television LLC, seeking rectification of the trademark register.
In this context, the court permitted E1 Entertainment Television LLC to introduce additional documents, specifically a YouTube video titled “E Entertainment TV 1993 Year in Review,” to support its case.
The court allowed the respondent to submit a downloaded copy of the video via a pen drive, subject to scrutiny by Bennet Coleman’s counsel. The petitioner was given the opportunity to admit or deny the document and file an additional affidavit contesting its validity within four weeks.
The ruling provides clarity on the procedural aspects of filing additional documents in response to rectification petitions, aligning with the principles of fairness and due process.
Case Title: BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR