Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Shindengen’s Patent Application remanded for fresh consideration for lack of reasoned order

Illustration of a desk lamp shining light on the glowing handwritten text "Reasoned order?" set against a dark blue background.

The Calcutta High Court remanded Shindengen Electric’s 2015 patent application after finding that the rejection order lacked proper reasoning. The decision emphasised the need for administrative transparency and importance of importance of judicial reasoning.

Fertilizer Patent Case: Court Blocks Sale of ‘Aladdin’ Pending Trial

Illustration of a green fertilizer bag filled with soil and leaves, featuring a prominent green "PATENTED" seal on the front, set against a light beige background.

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.

Patent Upheld, Design Dismissed: Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation – Part 1: Infringement & Relief

Illustration showing two people in discussion on the left and a justice scale on the right, with the text in between: “Dura-Line to Jain Irrigation: We Patented It. You Replicated It.” on a light green background.

This post analyzes the Delhi High Court’s decision in Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation, where the Court found patent infringement but rejected the design infringement claim.

Epifi Outspeeds F1 Trademark in Court – No Use, No Rights!

Two cars racing side-by-side toward a checkered finish line with a waving finish flag; one car with FI MONEY written on it leads as it speed past the car with F1 on it.

The Delhi High Court cancelled the F1 trademark held by Formula One in Class 36 for non-use in India, following Epifi’s rectification petition. The decision reaffirms that trademark rights require genuine and ongoing use.

IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary Liability

A man carrying a box walks on a running track that leads into a web browser window, symbolizing entry into an online marketplace.

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.

ITC’s Nicotine Device Patent Rejection on Public Health Grounds Set Aside

Text reading "Intent, Not Harm, Defines Section 3(b)" displayed in bold white font on a dark smoky background

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the refusal of ITC’s patent application for a nicotine aerosol device. The Court found that the Controller’s reliance on morality grounds under Section 3(b) was improper and unsupported by cited documents, ensuring a fresh review of the patent.

Patent for Enzyme-Based Animal Feed Supplementation Cleared of Section 3(i) Refusal

Cows feeding on hay in a livestock enclosure with an overlaid banner text that reads "Feed Supplementation Not A Method of Treatment".

The Madras High Court has allowed Kemin Industries’ patent on an enzyme-based animal feed method, overturning the Controller’s Section 3(i) refusal. The Court ruled that the method involves feed supplementation rather than treatment, confirming novelty and inventive step in the process.

Anti-Cancer Patent Refusal Set Aside for Not Identifying ‘Known Substance’

A colourful collage of sticky notes spelling out the word "UNKNOWN" is placed against a green and black background, with a blurred field of black question marks in the backdrop symbolising ambiguity and lack of clarity.

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of an anti-cancer patent filed by Taiho Pharmaceutical. The Court highlighted that objections under Section 3(d) must explicitly state the “known substance” being referenced and directed a fresh hearing for proper assessment.

All May Use “One for All” — But None May Own It

A digitally illustrated banner features the Three Musketeers in the center, wearing blue tunics with white crosses, brown gloves, and wide-brimmed hats, each holding a rapier. On the left side of the image, the phrase “ONE FOR ALL” appears in a playful white font, while “ALL FOR ONE” is displayed in matching style on the right. The background is a dark muted green, creating contrast that highlights both the figures and the text

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.

Not Just a Mix: Court Finds Merit in UPL’s Fungicidal Formulation

A red "REJECTED" stamp is shown on the left side, while a hand on the right holds a green reverse card from the Uno game, symbolizing a reversal of decision. The background is a soft peach color.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the rejection of a patent application filed by UPL Ltd., involving innovative fungicidal combinations. The Court found that the rejection order issued by the Controller lacked detailed reasoning and had procedural deficiencies, particularly concerning inventive step and treatment of experimental data.