BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Image accompanying blogpost on "Refusal of a patent application based on prior art not cited in hearing notice set aside by the Delhi High Court"

Refusal of a patent application based on prior art not cited in hearing notice set aside by the Delhi High Court

In this case the Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Controller of Patents refusing a patent application based on a ground not raised in the hearing notice. The refusal order was set aside as it lacked proper reasoning as required for inventive step analysis. Continue Reading Refusal of a patent application based on prior art not cited in hearing notice set aside by the Delhi High Court
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents February 14, 2024 414Views 0Like

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court. "

Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court.

In this case the Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Controller of Patents refusing a patent application. The refusal order was set aside as it lacked proper reasoning as required for inventive step analysis. Continue Reading Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court.
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents February 14, 2024 414Views 0Like

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on " Trademark opposition timelines are mandatory, and must be complied strictly, says the Delhi High Court"

Trademark opposition timelines are mandatory, and must be complied strictly, says the Delhi High Court

In this case, the Delhi High Court explored if a trademark opposition be ‘deemed as abandoned’ if there was a delay in service of evidence by the opponent in the opposition. The Court also explained whether the timelines mentioned in the Trade Marks Act and Rules are mandatory or not. Continue Reading Trademark opposition timelines are mandatory, and must be complied strictly, says the Delhi High Court
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks February 13, 2024 359Views 0Like

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Method of producing 'protein enriched blood serum' is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court"

Method of producing ‘protein enriched blood serum’ is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court reviewed whether new objections can be raised at the hearing stage of a Patent Application. The Court examined the claims and the refusal order, from the purview of Principles of Natural Justice. Continue Reading Method of producing ‘protein enriched blood serum’ is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents February 13, 2024 338Views 0Like

Read more

Where can you file Trademark Rectification Petitions

Where can you file Trademark Rectification Petitions? The Delhi High Court refers the question to a Larger Bench

Delhi High Court refers the question of filing jurisdiction for trademark rectification petitions to a larger bench, seeking clarity on whether it’s limited to the trademark office’s jurisdiction or any High Court. Continue Reading Where can you file Trademark Rectification Petitions? The Delhi High Court refers the question to a Larger Bench
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks February 12, 2024 258Views 0Like

Read more

Use of the Trademark 'Candlelight’ for Musical Concerts

Use of the Trademark ‘Candlelight’ for Musical Concerts restrained by the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court restrains Festival House Immersive from using ‘Candlelight’ for concerts, in a notable trademark case filed by Fever Labs, a global live entertainment platform. Continue Reading Use of the Trademark ‘Candlelight’ for Musical Concerts restrained by the Delhi High Court
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks February 9, 2024 193Views 0Like

Read more

Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court

Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court clarifies the nature of product by process patent claims in the ferric carboxymaltose dispute between Vifor International and MSN Labs. Continue Reading Product by Process Patent Claims are Product Claims, not Process Claims, rules the Delhi High Court
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents February 8, 2024 352Views 0Like

Read more