In a recent case involving a dispute over a non-compete clause, the Delhi High Court ruled that an employer cannot restrain a former employee from joining a new company after the termination of employment. The Court vacated an interim injunction restraining the employee from working with a client of his previous employer.
Read more about Employee Free to Join New Firm Despite Employer’s Non-Compete Clause – Delhi High CourtAuthor: Dr. Kalyan Kankanala
Dr. Kalyan Kankanala is a practicing intellectual property (IP) attorney and author. He is a senior partner at BananaIP Counsels, a well-known IP firm based in Bangalore, India. His writings cover a range of topics relating to IP law, business, and policy, and he has authored several books and articles in the field. He has been contributing to this blog since 2007.
The views expressed here are his own and do not represent those of BananaIP Counsels or its members.
Fertilizer Patent Case: Court Blocks Sale of ‘Aladdin’ Pending Trial
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of SML Limited, restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling a fertilizer composition under the brand ‘Aladdin’, which was found to prima facie infringe SML’s patented invention. The Court held that the patent had survived multiple oppositions and that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for infringement.
Read more about Fertilizer Patent Case: Court Blocks Sale of ‘Aladdin’ Pending TrialMS Subbulakshmi Biopic: Who Owns the Copyright over the Script?
In a case between Rajiv Menon and Dr. M.P. Somaprasad, the Karnataka High Court was asked to decide who owned the copyright over the script “MS and Bala” for a biopic on M.S. Subbulakshmi. The Court held that the script was an original work of the defendant and not based on the plaintiff’s book.
Read more about MS Subbulakshmi Biopic: Who Owns the Copyright over the Script?Dunlop Trademark Dispute: Eight Opposed Registrations Set Aside by Calcutta High Court
In a series of eight appeals concerning trademark oppositions filed by Dunlop International Limited against Glorious Investment Limited, the Calcutta High Court set aside orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks allowing Glorious Investment to register the mark “DUNLOP” in various classes. The Court held that the Registrar’s decisions were procedurally flawed, unreasoned, and passed in violation of natural justice.
Read more about Dunlop Trademark Dispute: Eight Opposed Registrations Set Aside by Calcutta High CourtDesign Piracy and Self-Inking Stamps: How the Informed Observer Test Saved Addprint
In a design piracy case involving self-inking stamps, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Trodat GmbH and its affiliate against an order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises to manufacture and market a redesigned stamp. The Court held that the proposed design did not amount to piracy under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000.
Read more about Design Piracy and Self-Inking Stamps: How the Informed Observer Test Saved AddprintBilling and Usage Data Invention Not a Business Method Under Section 3(k) of Patents Act
The Madras High Court has ruled in favour of Tekelec Inc., setting aside the rejection of its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act. The Court found the invention addressed a technical problem and did not constitute a business method, ordering a reassessment limited to software-related exclusions.
Read more about Billing and Usage Data Invention Not a Business Method Under Section 3(k) of Patents ActIndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary Liability
In a trademark infringement dispute between IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd. (“IndiaMART”) and PUMA SE (“PUMA”), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a prior injunction restraining IndiaMART from offering the PUMA trademark as an option in its seller registration drop-down menu. The Court permitted IndiaMART to continue offering trademark-based menu items and search terms, subject to obligations regarding takedown of infringing listings.
Read more about IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary LiabilityAll May Use “One for All” — But None May Own It
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited (“Oswaal Books”) challenging the refusal of their trademark application for the phrase “ONE FOR ALL.” The Court upheld the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision, and came to the conclusion that the applied mark was devoid of any inherent or acquired distinctiveness.
Read more about All May Use “One for All” — But None May Own ItUnder Armour Vs. Aero Armour: Initial Interest Confusion and Trademark Infringement
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Under Armour Inc. against Indian apparel entity Anish Agarwal & Anr., restraining the use of the trademarks ‘AERO ARMOUR’ and ‘ARMR’ during the pendency of the suit. The Court found that the respondents’ marks bore deceptive similarity to Under Armour’s registered word mark ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, and that their adoption for similar goods was prima facie infringing and not bona fide. The Court came to its conclusion of trademark infringement based on initial interest confusion among consumers, and by applying the dominant part rule.
Read more about Under Armour Vs. Aero Armour: Initial Interest Confusion and Trademark InfringementWhen Dye Becomes Decisive: Patent Infringement, Equivalence, and Estoppel
In a patent infringement case, the Delhi High Court denied Crystal Crop Protection’s request for an interim injunction against Safex Chemicals. The dispute in the case centred on a herbicidal formulation containing Clodinafop, Metribuzin, and a dyeing agent. The Court held that the dye was an essential claim element and that Safex’s dye-free products did not infringe, even by equivalence. It also invoked prosecution history estoppel, noting that Crystal’s own claim amendments precluded a broad claim interpretation.
Read more about When Dye Becomes Decisive: Patent Infringement, Equivalence, and Estoppel