Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Court Rules GUIs Eligible for Design Registration : No More Blanket Rejections

A person selecting options on a holographic graphical user interface showing happy, neutral, and sad rating icons, with the positive option selected.

The Calcutta High Court clarified that GUIs are not per se excluded from design registration under the Designs Act, 2000, strengthening GUI protection in India.

In Vitro Screening in Form, Diagnostic in Substance: Telomerase Therapy Patent Barred under Section 3(i)

Banner image with a yellow geometric background, a light bulb illustration in the centre, and bold black text reading: In Vitro Screening in Form, Diagnostic in Substance: Patent Refused under Section 3(i).

Labeling a test as ‘screening’ doesn’t make it patentable if it decides treatment. In Geron Corporation’s case, measuring telomere length to decide who receives telomerase therapy made the method a diagnostic process, blocking its patent.

Employment First, IPL Later, Copyright Nowhere

Copyright Authorship and Moral Rights Dispute

In the case of Gaurav Garg v. Aly Morani & Ors., the dispute arose from claims over the IPL Awards event, its presentation, and related written material. The plaintiff said that he had developed the event, reduced it into writing, and was entitled to authorship credit, moral rights, and commercial benefits, but the court rejected those claims after examining the employment relationship, Section 17(c), Section 57, the nature of the material, and the MOU.

Copyright Lives On, Even Before Probate

In the case of Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd v. Smt. Archana Debnath & Anr., the dispute arose from alleged publication and sale of copyrighted literary and artistic works of a deceased author after expiry of an earlier publishing arrangement. The publisher argued that the suit could not proceed because probate had not yet been granted and because an earlier suit had already been dismissed for default, but the court rejected both objections at the interim stage.

Speak Up or Step Aside: Bombay HC on What a Post-Grant Opposition Order Must Do

Two hands pull a rope taut from opposite sides against a dark background, with a turmeric coated root tied at the center.

In Saurabh Arora v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Bombay High Court set aside a post-grant patent opposition order that dismissed a challenge under Section 25(2)(c) of the Patents Act without recording a single reason. The court found complete non-application of mind in an order affecting a Cadila Pharmaceuticals patent – but will it survive a fresh look?

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.