Case Reviews | Intellepedia

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.

Images Copyright and AI Getty Vs. Stable Diffusion

In the case of Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd, Getty Images sued Stability AI, the developer of the Stable Diffusion generative AI model, alleging that the system had been trained on millions of copyrighted photographs from Getty Images’ websites. Getty Images argued that both the outputs generated by the AI system and the AI model itself infringed copyright. During the proceedings, Getty Images abandoned the claim relating to infringing outputs after the prompts used to generate those outputs were blocked. The High Court then examined whether the Stable Diffusion model itself could constitute an infringing copy and held that the model does not contain or store copies of Getty Images’ photographs and therefore cannot qualify as an infringing copy under UK copyright law.

Mere Admixture or True Innovation? Crystal Crop’s Herbicidal Composition Fails the Synergy Test

A hand writing the word “SYNERGY” above the equation “1 + 1 > 2” in red marker, illustrating the concept that combined elements can produce a greater effect than their individual contributions.

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed a simple patent lesson: mixing known compounds will not do unless the mix delivers something unexpectedly better. In Crystal Crop, the claimed herbicidal composition failed that test.

When Chatbots Sing Songs AI Outputs and Copyright Liability

In the case of GEMA v OpenAI entities operating ChatGPT, the collecting society GEMA sued the operators of a generative AI chatbot for reproducing protected song lyrics through chatbot outputs. The court examined chatbot responses generated after simple prompts asking for song lyrics and compared them with the original lyrics represented by GEMA. The court held that the operators are liable for copyright infringement arising from such outputs, ordered them to refrain from reproducing the lyrics through the chatbot, directed them to disclose the extent of the infringing acts and revenue earned from them, and held them liable to compensate damages.

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.