Karnataka High Court restrains Aditya Birla Fashion from selling sanitary undergarments patented by Yashram Lifestyle

The Karnataka High Court recently granted an absolute, ex-parte temporary injunction restraining Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited (defendant) from manufacturing/ selling sanitary undergarments patented by the plaintiff, Yashram Lifestyle [Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd vs Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited (Madura F And L Division)]..Justice HP Sandhesh said that balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs Yashram."The plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and there is a balance of convenience, lies in their favour and if infringement is not prevented, it causes hardship to the plaintiffs, since the plaintiffs invented the said product and brought the same into the market making huge investment and the plaintiffs have not given any authorization to the defendant to similarly place the period panty in the market," the Court said.Therefore, an ad-interim temporary injunction granted earlier was made absolute.."I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have made out a case to grant the temporary injunction and ad-interim temporary injunction is already granted and the same is in force, hence, this Court only has to make it as absolute instead of vacating the ad-interim temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is allowed and the temporary injunction granted earlier is made as absolute," the Court ordered..It added that if a temporary injunction is granted, it will not cause any hardship to the defendant but not granting the same would amount to causing hardship to the plaintiffs.."If a temporary injunction is granted, it will not cause any hardship to the defendant or otherwise it amounts to causing hardship to the plaintiffs and the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have made out a case to grant the temporary injunction and ad-interim temporary injunction is already granted and the same is in force, hence, this Court only has to make it as absolute instead of vacating the ad-interim temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs," the order said..Yashram had approached the Court arguing that its patent on a sanitary undergarment under the names 'Cotton Sensation Stay Dry Period Panty' and 'Period Panty' was being infringed by Aditya Birla Fashion..It was the plaintiff's case that the defendants were selling certain products by using an identical mark and claiming similar features as are offered by the plaintiffCountering this, the defendant argued that the product sold by the defendant is a distinct and different product from the plaintiffs' patent and hence, there is no case of infringement. The defendant has been selling the product since 2018. However, the patent was granted on February 16, 2019, which makes it relatively new and unestablished. .It was further submitted that while seeking temporary injunction, the plaintiffs have to establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience. In the instant case, the defendant submitted that the balance of convenience lies in its favour, because if the defendant is prevented from selling the product, it would lose out on its market share..However, the Court took a different view, opining that that since both the products have similar specifications, if the product of the defendant is marketed, the same would cause hardship to the plaintiffs. .There is a balance of convenience that lies in favour of the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs had sought a patent with the specification in respect of the panty in the year 2009 itself, the Court said. "Having considered the products of the plaintiffs and the defendant except for the flaps, all the specifications and designs are similar and also the said product is manufactured in order to give protection during the menstrual cycle preventing leakage of the fluid but having the similar specifications. When such being the case, if the product of the defendant is marketed, it causes hardship to the plaintiffs and hence, there is a balance of convenience that lies in favour of the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs in the year 2009 itself sought a patent with the specification in respect of the period panty. No doubt, the same was given in the year 2019. But the fact is that the defendant also marketed the very same product recently.".The contention of the defendant that their product came into existence prior to the patent of the plaintiff also did not dwell well with the Court. The same would require a trial, both, in respect of the contention of the invention and also on the grounds urged in the written statement with regard to the revocation of the patent of the plaintiffs, the Court said. "Admittedly, there is a patent in favour of the plaintiffs and the same was applied in the year 2009 and granted in the year 2019. Under the circumstances, I do not find any force in the contention of the defendant that its product is distinct and different from the plaintiffs' product exclusively," the order said..With these observations, the Court made temporary injunction granted earlier, absolute.Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa and advocate Pranav Kumar appeared for the Plaintiff. Advocates George Joseph, Nidhi Patil and Marcha Goveas for the Defendant..[Read Order]