- AI
- Arbitration
- Asia
- Automobile
- Bangladesh
- Banking
- Biodiversity
- Biological Inventions
- bLAWgathon
- Brand Valuation
- Business
- Celebrity Rights
- Company Act
- Company Law
- Competition Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Consumer Protection Authority
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Media
- Digital Right Management
- Dispute
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Environment Law Practice
- ESIC Act
- EX-Parte
- Farmer Right
- Fashion Law
- FDI
- FERs
- Foreign Law
- Gaming Industry
- GDPR
- Geographical Indication (GI)
- GIg Economy
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- IBC
- India
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property Protection
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- IT Act
- IVF technique
- Judiciary
- Khadi Industries
- labour Law
- Legal Case
- Legal Issues
- Lex Causae
- Licensing
- Live-in relationships
- Lok Sabha Bill
- Marriage Act
- Maternity Benefit Act
- Media & Entertainment Law
- Mediation Act
- Member of Parliament
- Mergers & Acquisition
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- News & Updates
- Non-Disclosure Agreement
- Online Gaming
- Patent Act
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Fess
- Patent Filing
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Marketing
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patents
- pharma
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Pollution
- Posh Act
- Protection of SMEs
- RERA
- Section 3(D)
- Signapore
- Social Media
- Sports Law
- Stamp Duty
- Stock Exchange
- Surrogacy in India
- TAX
- Technology
- Telecom Law
- Telecommunications
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Litigation
- Traditional Knowledge
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
ABSTRACT
The Hon’ble Commercial Court at Bengaluru passed an Ad Interim Ex-Parte Order in the favour of the plaintiff who had filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC, seeking injunction on the defendant “from disclosing, disposing or offering for sale any confidential information and materials obtained through the resources provided by the plaintiff to third parties who are in similar or identical business as that of the plaintiff.”
[Image Sources: Gettyimage]
Green Tiger Mobility Private Limited recognised by ARAI, have developed a one-of-a-kind dual powertrain kit which enables drivers to swiftly convert their two wheelers and three wheelers an electric vehicle (EV) powertrain to an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) powertrain and vice versa. The company intended to launch their dual powertrain kit in the market by January 2022 and was on a lookout for vendors could manufacture spare parts of their product within a time bound manner. During such a lookout the Company came across the defendants in 2021. Defendants assured the plaintiff (Green Tiger Mobility Private Limited) that they had the requite expertise and manpower to deliver the plaintiff’s demands.
After the submission of draft proposal by the Defendants and sharing of confidential information by the Plaintiff, the defendant was awarded four projects consecutively (design and development of smart IOT motor controller, smart battery management system, display for dual powertrain two-wheelers, IoT integration for motor controller). During the course of the said projects the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of INR 15,00,000 for procuring materials for design and development of prototypes, yet the Defendants were unable to deliver the projects causing a huge loss to the plaintiff. Due to the failure of the Defendants to perform their obligations the plaintiff was compelled to terminate the projects awarded and manufacture the spare parts inhouse, incurring additional charges for same.
Though the Plaintiff attempted to reach into an amicable settlement, the Defendants were never interested and continued to delay the settlement process. Aggrieved by the conduct of Defendants, the Plaintiff approached the Commercial Court, and also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC, seeking injunction on the defendant “from disclosing, disposing or offering for sale any confidential information and materials obtained through the resources provided by the Plaintiff to third parties who are in similar or identical business as that of the Plaintiff.”
The plaintiff contended that the Defendants misrepresented themselves with the sole intention to abstract confidential information from the plaintiff regarding the products and to sell the same to third parties such as the plaintiff’s competitors. Further, the defendants used the contract with the plaintiff to create its own network with the vendors using the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff by the virtue of its contractual association with them. Admitting the plaintiff’s arguments, the hon’ble court sided with the plaintiff, granting an ad-interim order against the defendants.
The Petitioner, Green Tiger Mobility Private Limited is represented by Khurana and Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys through its team comprising of Tarun Khurana, Abhijeet Deshmukh, Anubhav Gupta, Arjun Santhosh and Deeksha Prakash. Before the Commercial Court, the application was argued by Advocate Arjun Santhosh, Senior Associate – Litigation and assisted by Advocate Deeksha Prakash.
Case Title: Green Tiger Mobility Private Limited v. AX Design & ANR. Com.OS No. 1812/2022 Commercial Court, Bangalore
Author: Apurbaa Dutta, a final year Law student at OP Jindal Global law university, Sonipat, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.