<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
section 3(d) of the patent law and 30(3) of the trade mark act.
heavy shit.<br>
<br>
-------- Mesajul original --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subiect: </th>
<td>[SPICY IP] SpicyIP Tidbit: Customs Department allows
parallel import of Dell computers; orders Dell to pay
damages</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Dată: </th>
<td>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:03:24 +0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">de la: </th>
<td>Prashant Reddy <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:preddy85@gmail.com"><preddy85@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Răspuns
către: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:preddy85@gmail.com">preddy85@gmail.com</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Către: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:spicyip@googlegroups.com">spicyip@googlegroups.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Vq2nnMdm9Lg/T4Sf44--nPI/AAAAAAAAA8I/TcH8bPlD3GM/s1600/38-dell_logo_1_1.png"
imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left;
margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Vq2nnMdm9Lg/T4Sf44--nPI/AAAAAAAAA8I/TcH8bPlD3GM/s200/38-dell_logo_1_1.png"
border="0" height="200" width="200"></a>In an <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-04-09/news/31313110_1_dell-india-importers-dell-spokesperson"
target="_blank">interesting report carried in the Economic
Times</a>, it has been reported that the Commissioner of
Customs has not only allowed the parallel imports of Dell
computers into the country but also ordered Dell to pay
demurrage & warehousing charges to the importers whose goods
had been seized for over two months due to a complaint made by
Dell. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the report does not specifically explain the law under
which the consignments were withheld, I’m guessing that Dell had
filed a complaint with customs under the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/formatted-htmls/ipr-enforcementrules.htm"
target="_blank">IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007</a>
that the import of Dell computers into India, by unauthorized
dealers, infringes its trademark rights in India. As per the IPR
Import Rules, the Customs may seize such goods for a certain
period of time during which the Customs authorities is required
to arrive at a judgment on the validity of the infringement
claims. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As per the ET report, the importers argued that the products
were genuine Dell products and that they had a right to import
such goods under the provisions of Section 30 of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999. Readers may remember the highly controversial Samsung
judgment of the Delhi High Court which interpreted Section 30(3)
of the Trade Marks Act to specifically prohibit the parallel
imports on the grounds that the same amounted to trademark
infringement in India. Arun Mohan had covered this case in a
guest post over <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2012/03/guest-post-landmark-judgement-on.html"
target="_blank">here</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Customs Commissioner obviously had a different
interpretation of Section 30(3). Normally such seizure orders
under the IPR Import rules are done only when the complainant
provides a surety that covers any possible damages to the
defendant in the case of a wrongful seizure. In this case since
the seizure was deemed as having no basis in the law, Dell was
required to compensate the defendant for the losses suffered by
them due to the seizure of their imports. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It will be interesting to see the decision of any appeals court
especially since there seems to be a general unanimity of
opinion that the Samsung judgment of the Delhi High Court is
untenable in law. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
p.s.: Anybody with a copy of the order is please requested to
share the same with us.</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Posted By Prashant Reddy to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2012/04/spicyip-tidbit-customs-department.html">SPICY
IP</a> at 4/11/2012 02:33:00 AM -- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SPICY IP" group.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:spicyip@googlegroups.com">spicyip@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:spicyip+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">spicyip+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit this group at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://groups.google.com/group/spicyip?hl=en">http://groups.google.com/group/spicyip?hl=en</a>.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>