Background of the Case
The case at hand revolves around a dispute wherein the defendant claims prior user rights over a mark imprinted on the cover of a book allegedly published in 1995. To substantiate this claim, the defendant submitted digital screenshots of the book as evidence of prior use.

However, upon the court's inquiry, it was revealed that the submitted copies were digital reproductions and not the original physical publications. This revelation casts doubt on the credibility of the evidence presented and raises concerns about its authenticity.

Legal Analysis
The admissibility of digital evidence in legal proceedings is contingent upon its reliability and authenticity. While digital copies offer convenience and accessibility, they are inherently susceptible to alterations and manipulations, thus compromising their credibility as reliable evidence. In the context of prior use claims, where the establishment of historical usage is crucial, the reliance on digital evidence poses significant challenges.

Absence of physical Copies of documents:
The court's rejection of the defendant's prior use argument is grounded in the principle that the evidence presented fails to conclusively establish the authenticity of the mark's historical usage. The absence of original physical copies deprives the court of tangible evidence that could verify the existence and usage of the mark at the purported time.

Vulnerability of Digital Documents:
Digital images, by their nature, lack the inherent reliability of physical copies and are susceptible to manipulation, casting doubt on their probative value.

Moreover, the court rightfully raises concerns about the origins of the digital copies and whether they accurately represent the 1995 publication. Without concrete evidence linking the digital reproductions to the original physical copies, the authenticity of the evidence remains questionable. While acknowledging the existence of a digital version of the document, the court appropriately exercises caution in accepting it as definitive proof of prior use.

Importance of Physical Documents:
The ideal substantiation of prior use should involve the production of physical copies of the publications from the relevant period. Physical evidence not only provides tangible proof of historical usage but also mitigates concerns regarding authenticity and reliability. In the absence of such evidence, courts are rightfully hesitant to accord credence to digital reproductions, which lack the same level of certainty and verifiability.

The Case Discussed:
Case Title: Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sovereign Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and another
Judgment/Order Date: 24.04.2024
Case No:CS Comm 304 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2963
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Narula,H.J.

Disclaimer:
This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539