Dispute w.r.t. of filing of malicious suit for copyright infringement by ‘Inox’ was outside the domain of CCI

Case Details: Cryogas Equipment (P.) Ltd. v. Inox India (P.) Ltd. - [2022] 138 taxmann.com 179 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ashok Kumar Gupta | Chairperson, Ms Sangeeta Verma & Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi | Member
  • Vaibhav Gaggar, Ms. Kokila Kumar, Ketan Sarraf, Advs., Pankaj Bhatt & Nayan B. Pandya for the Appellant.
  • Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anisha Chand, Soham Banerjee, Areeb Amanullah, Advs. & Sudhir Sethi, Authorised Representative for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the Instant case, an application was filed by the CEPL (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) alleging abuse of dominant position by company ‘Inox’ (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).

‘CEPL’ was engaged in providing solutions with regard to Air, Gas, and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and also catered to the need of city gas distribution. After obtaining necessary approvals and procedures, ‘CEPL’ made a foray into LNG semi-trailer market.

‘CEPL’ alleged that Inox had maliciously instituted a civil suit claiming infringement of Inox’s copyright by ‘CEPL’ over proprietary engineering drawing in relation to the LNG semi-trailer. Inox had also filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against CEPL and LNG Express to restrain them from using the drawing of the LNG semi-trailer of Inox.

Inox further moved an application in the aforesaid suit, seeking to appoint a Court Commissioner for the purposes of searching the premises of CEPL including making/preparing an inventory of the impugned drawing and making copies of the same from the computer’s hardware, promotional materials, etc., found in CEPL’s possession.

CEPL alleged that the allegations made by Inox were sham. The Inox further made the various threatening communications to the customers/potential customers of CEPL, as well as to a regulatory authority, with a view to jeopardize the business interests of CEPL, a competitor of Inox in the supply of LNG semi-trailers in the India. This amounts to abuse of dominant position by Inox in contravention of provisions of section 4.

CCI Held

The CCI held that the alleged IPR infringement perspective requires an examination of whether there is substantial copying or copying of material features, which is based on the appreciation of evidence.

It was held that CCI is not the competent authority to deal with the IPR issue and the subject matter was to be decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction where the matter was pending as it was beyond the domain of Competition authority.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Biocon Ltd. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche AG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 212 (CCI) (para 23)
  • Bull Machines (P.) Ltd. v. JCB India Ltd. [2014] 44 taxmann.com 305/128 SCL 142 (CCI) (para 23)
  • JSW Paints (P.) Ltd. v. Asian Paints Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 312/158 SCL 720 (CCI) (para 23)
  • Cadbury Schweppes Pty. Ltd. v. Kenman Developments Australia [1991] 13 ATPR 41-116 (para 23)
  • Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures Industries (1993) 508 US 49 (para 23)
  • Astrazeneca v. Commission (COMP/A37.507 EU) (para 23).