Life Technologies VS Life Technologies
The High Court of Delhi vide its order on an application seeking injunction filed by Life Technologies Corporation (LTC), US (formerly Invitrogen Corporation), against Life Technologies India Private Ltd (LTIPL) from using the trademarks Life Technologies and Life Tech, as well as domains Lifetechindia.com, Lifetechnologiesindia.co.in, LifetechnologiesIndia.Com, Gibcobrlindia.com and Invitrogenindia.com was dismissed by dated January 29, 2014. Click here to download the Delhi High Court order copy- Life Technologies VS Life Technologies.
LTIPL is an Indian company promoted by Mr Rajan Sahni and was established in 2002. According to Mr Sahni, Invitrogen sold out 100 percent shareholding of its Indian arm ATZ Lab Solutions India Private Limited (ATZ Labs) to LTIPL in December 2002. ATZ Labs (formerly Invitrogen India Pvt Ltd and GIBCOBRL India Pvt Ltd) was sold out to LTIPL.
Invitrogen Corporation, US, merged with ABI and changed its name to LTC upon merger in November 2008. After merger it filed two cases in 2010 and 2011 respectively against ATZ Labs before National Arbitration Forum, US (NAF), for transfer of domains (gibcobrlindia.com and invitrogenindia.com) that were dismissed at NAF. After dismissal of the two petitions at the NAF, LTC then approached LTIPL in Apr 2011 so as to acquire/seek license to use the intellectual property of LTIPL namely Life Technologies, lifetechindia.com, gibcobrlindia.com, and invitrogenindia.com duly admitting and acknowledging that the above brand names and related domains were the assets of LTIPL.
After being declined by LTIPL, LTC then approached the High Court of Delhi for a prohibitory injunction against LTIPL and ATZ Labs from using the name Life Technologies, Life Tech, lifetechindia.com, lifetechnologiesIndia.com, lifetechindia.co.in, lifetechnologiesindia.co.in, as well as gibcobrlindia.com and invitrogenindia.com.
After nearly 20 months of hearing, the High Court of Delhi has dismissed LTC's application thereby vacating its earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The High Court observed that the litigation commenced only after LTC had lost before NAF for taking another chance to somehow or the other get back the suit marks, domain names etc. from the defendants over which Invitrogen Corporation itself had been left with no rights much before the re-incorporation/resurrection of plaintiff no.1 (LTC) in the year 2008. The High Court has further held that LTC themselves have accepted the position that the suit trademarks etc. stood vested in ATZ Labs/LTIPL.