Gaurav Mishra | Intellepedia

Two Piscos, One Bar: Delhi High Court Division Bench Confirms Dual GI Identity for Peru and Chile

Two bottles and two glasses of Pisco labeled "Peruvian Pisco" and "Chilean Pisco" are displayed on a table set against a scenic vineyard backdrop at sunset, symbolizing the geographical indication dispute between Peru and Chile.

What began as a routine GI application in 2005 ended twenty years later with Delhi High Court’s Division Bench settling one of Indian IP law’s most contested geographical indication disputes. Can Peru hold “PISCO” exclusively – or must two countries share a five-letter word?

KENT can’t do it! Court proves it’s not a big FAN of Kent’s Brand Stretch, backs prior use

In the case of Kent Ro Systems Limited v. Kent Cables Private Limited, two businesses using the same mark KENT clashed over who could sell fans under that mark. One side relied on its strong reputation in water purifiers and home appliances. The other relied on earlier adoption of KENT for electrical goods and evidence of fan sales over several years. The Division Bench upheld the interim restraint against Kent RO and left the final rights to be decided at trial.

Steering the divide: Steer Engineering’s divisional application denied by Court

A surreal scene of a car steering wheel standing upright in a narrow trench cut through a dry grassy field under a partly cloudy sky at sunset reflecting Steer Engineering’s failed patent appeal and the Court upholding the refusal of the divisional application.

Madras High Court upheld the refusal of Steer Engineering’s divisional patent application, affirming lack of inventive step and overlap with the parent filing.

No double riding! Court clarifies on patent revocation plea in case involving Philips

The image shows a Businessman balancing with one foot on each of two small wooden boats in open water, illustrating the attempt by one of the Parties in this case to seek patent revocation through multiple forums.

In the case of Versuni Holding B.V. Trading as Preethi v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, the patent holder had already sued for infringement before the Delhi High Court. The alleged infringer then filed a written statement there seeking invalidity and revocation of the patent, but also filed a separate revocation petition before the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court dismissed that separate revocation petition and accepted the objection to its maintainability.

Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki: When MOTION met TRANSFORMOTION, Similarity missed the bus!

Promotional graphic for Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki featuring a red-and-blue transforming robot on the left and the words “AUTOBOTS! TRANSFORM...” in bold white and orange text on a muted grey background.

In the case of Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., Volkswagen opposed Maruti Suzuki’s application for TRANSFORMOTION in Class 12 on the ground that it was too close to Volkswagen’s earlier mark 4MOTION. The court examined the marks in the setting in which they were used, noted that one was tied to a vehicle technology and the other to an advertising campaign, and concluded that the two marks did not create deceptive similarity.

Amendment of claims at Appellate Stage under section 59 of the Patents Act

Banner graphic displaying the text “Amendment of Claims at Appellate Stage” with a central icon representing a heat exchanger, on a blue and tan background.

In the case of Daikin Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Indian Patent Office refused Daikin’s patent application relating to a shell and plate heat exchanger on the ground of lack of novelty over a prior art document. During the appeal before the High Court, Daikin sought permission to amend claim 1 by incorporating additional limitations already disclosed in the specification. The court examined whether such an amendment could be permitted at the appellate stage under Section 59 of the Patents Act.

Can Anyone Own the “Forest”? Delhi High Court Applies Anti Dissection Rule in Forest Essentials case

Banner image of a dense forest with sunlight filtering through tall trees and a path running through it, featuring the text “Who owns the FOREST?” in a green label.

The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant an interim injunction in the dispute between Forest Essentials and Baby Forest Ayurveda. The court held that “BABY FOREST” was not deceptively similar to “FOREST ESSENTIALS,” and that the word **“FOREST,” being a dictionary word, could not be monopolised without strong evidence of secondary meaning. Applying the anti dissection rule, the court concluded that the marks must be assessed as a whole and declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s refusal of interim relief.

Dead Company Dead Mark: Trademark cannot survive a Non Existent Owner or unrecorded trademark assignment

Gravestone in a green field engraved with “Here lies a trademark that died when the company died,” symbolizing a struck-off company and the legal issue of an unrecorded trademark assignment in trademark law.

In the case of Tibbs Food Private Limited vs D Lite Frankies and Foods Private Limited, the petitioner sought removal of a trademark registered for “D Lite Frankies and Foods Private Limited.” During the proceedings it came to light that the registered proprietor company had already been struck off, and the trademark had allegedly been assigned to an individual years earlier. The court had to decide whether the registration could continue in the name of a non existent company and what effect the unrecorded assignment would have.

Wanted Dead or Alive: Delhi High Court Holds Patent Revocation Survives Expiry and Section 107 Defence

Hand wearing a blue glove holding a small vial beside torn paper with the words “How to Survive,” symbolizing the Patent revocation case as decided by the Delhi High Court between Boehringer Ingelheim v. Controller

In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents & Anr., the Delhi High Court addressed two important questions under the Patents Act: whether a revocation petition survives patent expiry, and whether it can continue after a Section 107 invalidity defence is raised in an infringement suit. The dispute arose from parallel revocation and infringement proceedings relating to Patent IN 243301 covering Linagliptin. The court held that revocation under Section 64 remains maintainable despite patent expiry and is not barred by a Section 107 defence.

OLIVE Trademark Case: Delhi High Court on Section 11 & Prior User Rights

Green-themed banner featuring an olive green T-shirt shown from the back on the left, a wooden board with green, black, and red olives and a small bottle of olive oil in the center, and an olive green T-shirt on the right printed with the phrase “OLIVE YOU” against a dark green background.

Delhi High Court refuses OLIVE trademark in Class 35, holding similarity with Class 25 marks and lack of proven prior user rights under Section 11.