Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Non Use of Trademark Leads to Cancellation: Delhi High Court favors Zepto

The Delhi High Court, in an ex-parte decision, ordered the removal of the ‘ZEPTO’ trademark registered by Mohammad Arshad in Class 35, upholding Kiranakart’s claim of non-use. The judgment affirms that trademarks must be actively used to retain validity under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act.

Only Copyright Societies Can Issue Licenses: Delhi High Court Strikes a Blow to Music Licensing Practices of PPL, Novex, and Others

In Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., the Court held that Phonographic Performance Limited (“PPL”), though an assignee of copyrights, could not engage...

When Delay Becomes Denial: Calcutta High Court Overturns Patent Rejection

The recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in BASF SE v. Joint Controller of Patents warrants attention for multiple reasons, particularly as it addresses...

Regents’ Patent on Live Salmonella Vaccine Fails to Meet Disclosure Requirements, Court Rules

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the Controller of Patents' decision to reject an appeal filed by the Regents of the University of California (hereafter...

Hybrid Cell Inventions: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act Does Not Apply

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld an appeal filed by BTS Research International Pty Ltd (“BTS”) challenging the rejection by the Assistant...

ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro upheld

The Delhi High Court upheld ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro, restraining the company from using the trademark ‘POWRNYM.’ The Court ruled that the mark was deceptively similar to ITC’s ‘NIMYLE’ and ‘JOR-POWR,’ violating trademark rights. The judgment emphasized that contractual obligations and trade dress similarities must be strictly adhered to in trademark disputes.

Patentability vs. Procedure: Finding the Right Balance during patent examinations

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Arcturus Therapeutics, overturning the Controller’s rejection of its patent application on procedural grounds. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance should not override substantive examination, directing the Patent Office to reassess the application on its merits.

Madras High Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Suit, Allows Coexistence of Technologies

The Madras High Court ruled on a patent infringement dispute involving Arumugam Rajendra Babu and Ashok Leyland over battery-swapping technology. The Court found no infringement and dismissed both the suit and counterclaims, allowing both parties to coexist. The ruling addressed prior art, novelty, and the scope of patent protection in the electric vehicle sector.

The Battle for Respect continues: Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial

The Delhi High Court addressed the appeals in the Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial trademark dispute. The case involved phonetic similarity, consumer confusion, and corporate branding rights. The Court maintained the status quo, requiring disclaimers in advertisements and setting a final hearing for April 2025.

Amazon Ordered to Pay ₹336 Crore in Damages for Willful Trademark Infringement

The Delhi High Court has ordered Amazon Technologies, Inc. to pay ₹336 crore in damages for willful trademark infringement of the Beverly Hills Polo Club logo. The ruling also includes ₹3.23 crore in litigation costs and a permanent injunction against Amazon. The case, filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Lifestyle Licensing B.V., highlights Amazon’s liability in unauthorized brand usage.

Category: Case Reviews