BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement

Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement

The dispute centers on the “PEBBLE” mark used by V Guard and Crompton. V Guard, adopting it in 2013 for electric water heaters, clashed with Crompton’s 2020 application for “CROMPTON PEBBLE” for electric irons. Delhi High Court’s injunction restrained Crompton from using “PEBBLE,” citing Trade Marks Act violations. The Court upheld V Guard’s reputation, dismissing Crompton’s appeal. Continue Reading Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 13 hours ago 21Views 0Like

Read more

SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs - Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5

SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5

In this case, the Court has crystallized and reiterated several patent principles relating to patentability under Section 3(k), novelty, inventive step, infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), Exhaustion, FRAND royalty determination, and so on. Along with other principles, the Court has also outlined the principles for grant of actual costs. Continue Reading SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 2 days ago 48Views 0Like

Read more

Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4

Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4

This post covers the aspects of infringement as discussed by the Delhi High Court in the Lava v. Ericsson case. The Court noted that the fulcrum of the dispute between the parties in this case was the issue of whether Lava was guilty of infringing Ericsson’s patents or not. Continue Reading Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 2 days ago 35Views 0Like

Read more

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out. Ericsson v. Lava case. Part 3

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3

Several aspects of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Licensing were discussed in the Ericsson Vs. Lava Case, and in this post, we will discuss three of those: Royalty Stacking, Hold Up, and Hold Out. Continue Reading Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents April 19, 2024 70Views 0Like

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case."

Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.

Unlicensed music played at sporting events can lead to copyright infringement lawsuits. This blog post explores a case where the event organizer blamed sponsors for the music, highlighting the complexities of copyright compliance during large events. Continue Reading Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.
Case Reviews, Copyrights, Intellectual Property April 18, 2024 71Views 0Like

Read more

Google's Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Delhi High Court upholds decision against Google LLC in patent appeal, imposes Rs.1 lakh fine for misleading disclosure. Case delves into inventive step assessment, citing prior art and user preferences. Authored by Sowmya Murthy, Patents Team, BananaIP Counsels. Case Citation: Google LLC v. The Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 395/2022 Continue Reading Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents April 16, 2024 49Views 0Like

Read more

Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal

Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision to refuse CEAT Limited’s trademark application for “FARMAX.” Citing significant delay and potential confusion with existing marks, the Court dismissed the appeal. The decision underscores the importance of timely action and highlights the necessity for distinctiveness in trademark applications. Learn more about the case: Ceat Limited vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks. Continue Reading Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks April 15, 2024 58Views 0Like

Read more

Ericsson v. Lava - Part 2

Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2

While Part 1 of the Ericsson vs. Lava post series covered the summary of the court's judgement, this post discusses the principles reiterated by the Court recently in the Ericsson vs. Lava case, for analyzing inventions in the context of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.  Lava filed a counterclaim against Ericsson’s patents in which Lava challenged that the inventions claimed by Ericsson fell under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. In particular, Lava had pleaded in its…
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents April 12, 2024 86Views 0Like

Read more