Author: 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.

Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation

The Delhi High Court dismissed Wipro’s appeal against an injunction favouring Himalaya’s prior use of the EVECARE trademark. The court held that prior user rights and likelihood of confusion prevailed over trademark class differences in this passing off case.

Only Officers having Quasi Judicial Authority Can Pass Trademark Orders, says the Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that only officers with quasi judicial authority may issue binding trademark orders under the Trade Marks Act. Orders passed by unauthorized officials were declared void, setting a significant precedent for the administration of trademark opposition proceedings in India.

Jumbo Tramples Haathi Trademark Registration

The Calcutta High Court set aside the Registrar’s decision in a trademark dispute involving similar elephant marks for tea products. The court held that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar to Girnar’s well-known “JUMBO” mark and allowed Girnar’s appeal.

Evaluating Trademark Infringement: Holistic View and Goods Differentiation to Determine Likelihood of Confusion

The Gujarat High Court clarified that trademark infringement requires a holistic comparison of marks and their respective goods or services. The court found no likelihood of confusion between Unisn and Unison, highlighting the need to consider all circumstances and the anti-dissection rule in such cases.

Cool interim order for ITW’s pre-conditioned air patent, but Competitor’s airport deals allowed to continue

The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim injunction in the ITW pre-conditioned air patent dispute, focusing on inventive step and claim construction under Indian law. While ITW secured a ban on future infringing acts, Dabico’s existing airport deployments were allowed to proceed.

Cow dung lamp from Traditional Knowledge fails to light up patentability standards

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal seeking patent protection for a cow dung lamp, finding it ineligible due to reliance on traditional knowledge and lack of inventive step. The judgment offers clarity on the application of Section 3(p) and inventive step analysis under Indian patent law.

Court Cranks the Clock Back on Opposed Crankshaft Patent Refusal

The Madras High Court set aside the refusal of an opposed piston engine patent, citing insufficient analysis of inventive features. The case underscores the need for detailed examination of claim amendments and inventive step in Indian patent proceedings.

Patent on Portable Vehicle Management System goes offtrack

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of a patent application for a portable vehicle management system, citing lack of inventive step over prior art. This case highlights the application of key Indian patent law principles on non-obviousness and inventive step, particularly regarding mosaicing and hindsight bias.

Marc Salon’s Design Makes the Cut: Court Grants Injunction

The Delhi High Court has upheld an injunction protecting Marc Salon’s salon furniture designs against GM Sales, recognising their originality and market reputation. The Court found strong evidence of passing off and copyright infringement, confirming Marc Salon’s entitlement to legal protection.

Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

The Bombay High Court has restrained Gleck Pharma from using XIGAMET for its diabetes product, finding it deceptively similar to Glenmark’s ZITA-MET. This decision highlights the Court’s heightened scrutiny in pharmaceutical trademark cases to prevent consumer confusion and associated health risks.