In the case of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Delhi High Court set aside a refusal of a Class 16 application. In simple terms, the Court said that an order passed without an effective hearing, and without dealing with the documents on file, cannot stand.
Read more about Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearingsCategory: Case Reviews
Internet rights in cinematographic films – Vasuki, Shenbaga Kottai, and Dubai Rani copyright infringement case
The Madras High Court, in a copyright infringement case involving Tamil films Vasuki, Shenbaga Kottai, and Dubai Rani, held that the plaintiff is the sole copyright owner of the internet rights and restrained the defendants from online exploitation. The Court awarded nominal damages for infringement.
Read more about Internet rights in cinematographic films – Vasuki, Shenbaga Kottai, and Dubai Rani copyright infringement caseTrademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement Suit
In Deepak Kumar Khemka v. Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors., the Delhi High Court held that filing a trademark application does not amount to trademark infringement. The Court dismissed the suit in limine, reiterating that infringement under the Trade Marks Act arises only from use in trade – not from proposed registration.
Read more about Trademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement SuitNo Injunction After Patent Expiry, Holds Delhi High Court
In the case of Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v. LMW Limited, the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction after the expiry of the patent in suit. The Court held that patent rights lapse with expiry and cannot be enforced thereafter.
Read more about No Injunction After Patent Expiry, Holds Delhi High CourtDelhi HC Remands Oxidation Process Patent Rejection, Cites Invalid Section 2(1)(j) and 59 Findings
In the case of Treibacher Industrie AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of a patent application for a catalytic oxidation process. It held that the amended claims qualified as a process invention and were within the permissible scope of amendment under Section 59.
Read more about Delhi HC Remands Oxidation Process Patent Rejection, Cites Invalid Section 2(1)(j) and 59 FindingsSweet victory and Sweeter rewards – court declares NUTELLA well-known Trademark
Delhi HC grants Ferrero ₹30 lakh in damages, declaring ‘NUTELLA’ a well-known trademark in a major counterfeit case against M.B. Enterprises.
Read more about Sweet victory and Sweeter rewards – court declares NUTELLA well-known TrademarkCourt delivers an ‘Iconic’ ruling in JOLLY RANCHER trademark dispute
Gujarat High Court quashes Shiv Textiles’ trademark suit against Iconic IP Interests LLC for lack of Indian jurisdiction and no valid cause of action under CPC.
Read more about Court delivers an ‘Iconic’ ruling in JOLLY RANCHER trademark disputeAtomberg fans or Luker fans, whose “fan” are you?
The Bombay High Court dismissed Atomberg’s appeal against the denial of an interim injunction in a design infringement case against Luker. The court ruled that Atomberg’s fan design lacked novelty due to prior publication and was merely a trade variant.
Read more about Atomberg fans or Luker fans, whose “fan” are you?Court Awards ₹50 Lakh to GSP Crop Science in Patent Infringement Case Over Agrochemical Formula
Delhi HC orders ₹50 lakh in damages to GSP Crop Science for patent infringement in agrochemicals, affirming seller liability under Indian patent law.
Read more about Court Awards ₹50 Lakh to GSP Crop Science in Patent Infringement Case Over Agrochemical FormulaPatented Biologics and Section 104A: No Process Disclosure Without Proving Product Identity
Roche sued Zydus for infringing its process patent on Pertuzumab. The Delhi High Court held that Roche had not shown Zydus’s biosimilar was identical to its product. Without identity, Section 104A did not apply, and the Court refused to compel Zydus to disclose its manufacturing process.
Read more about Patented Biologics and Section 104A: No Process Disclosure Without Proving Product Identity