Gaurav Mishra | Intellepedia

Frivolous inventions and abstract theories – Delhi High Court refuses patent appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a patent application due to lack of novelty and a significant procedural delay of 701 days. The appellants, who had filed a patent application for black-colored wearables with claimed effects on human energy, failed to provide scientific evidence or technical merit. The court upheld the Indian Patent Office’s decision, emphasizing that abstract ideas are not patentable and reaffirming the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines for appeals.

Patent Abandonment Overturned: Delhi HC Rules on FER Miscommunication

The Delhi High Court set aside the deemed abandonment of Waterotor’s Indian patent application, citing miscommunication regarding the First Examination Report (FER). The Court ruled that the lack of timely FER receipt justified reinstatement, directing the Patent Office to restore the application’s status to “pending” and allow a response within four weeks.

Shoes, footwears and deceptive similarity in Trademark law

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of New Balance Athletics, Inc., restraining Kiran Shoe Company from infringing its trademarks. The Court awarded ₹7,00,000 in damages and costs, emphasizing that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and aimed at leveraging New Balance’s reputation.

Court refuses interim injunction based on Patent Prosecution History

The Delhi High Court refused an interim injunction in a patent dispute over a fuel cap, citing ambiguous claims and prosecution history. The judgment highlights the need for precise claim drafting and careful interpretation in patent litigation.

Madras HC Overrules Procedural Rejection in France Telecom’s Patent Case

The Madras High Court allowed France Telecom’s writ petition, setting aside the procedural rejection of its patent application examination request. The judgment clarifies the treatment of agent errors under Indian patent law and upholds procedural fairness.

Revisiting Novartis versus Natco – Cancer drugs, divisional applications and patent validity

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Novartis’s Ceritinib patent against Natco’s challenge, addressing divisional application issues and allegations of suppression. The injunction against Natco remains in force, reinforcing the enforceability of Novartis’s patent rights.

Not everyone’s cup of coffee! Cothas Coffee sips a trademark victory

The Bengaluru Civil Court has permanently restrained former partners of Cothas Coffee from using the mark “COTHA” for coffee businesses, citing trademark infringement and lack of bona fide use. This judgment highlights the legal standards for trademark protection and passing off under Indian law.

Monster Energy falls short of “Energy for the ‘Trademark’ Journey”

The Madras High Court rejected Monster Energy’s trademark application, finding “Energy for the Journey” was generic and lacked distinctiveness. The decision clarifies the legal threshold for trademark registrability under Indian law.

Patent Application Rejection Set Aside for Improper Citation of Withdrawn Prior Art

The Madras High Court overturned a patent rejection due to improper citation of withdrawn prior art, directing a fresh examination. The case highlights the necessity for strict compliance with procedural safeguards in Indian patent proceedings.

“Liv-52 versus Liv-40.” In the game of Trademarks you “Liv” or you die!

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Himalaya, finding AB Allcare’s use of Liv-40 and similar trade dress to be deceptively similar to Liv.52. This case highlights critical aspects of trademark and trade dress protection in India.