Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Court Cranks the Clock Back on Opposed Crankshaft Patent Refusal

The Madras High Court remanded Pinnacle Engines Inc.’s patent application for their opposed piston engine, addressing inventive features overlooked by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court emphasized the significance of the crank offset and opposite crankshaft rotation in reducing friction and vibration, directing a reassessment by a different officer.

Patent on Portable Vehicle Management System goes offtrack

The Delhi High Court confirmed the refusal of Mahesh Gupta’s patent application for a Portable Vehicle Management System, citing the lack of an inventive step in light of prior arts D4 and D5. The decision underscores important principles of patentability, including mosaicing, hindsight bias, and the criteria for non-obviousness.

Whose mark got the ‘X’ Factor? Relaxo Footwear vs XS Brands

The Delhi High Court analyzed a trademark dispute between Relaxo Footwears Limited and XS Brands Consultancy over the use of the ‘X’ device mark. Despite Relaxo’s claims of prior use, the court found in favor of XS Brands, citing the limited likelihood of consumer confusion and the crowded trademark register.

Marc Salon’s Design Makes the Cut: Court Grants Injunction

The Delhi High Court has confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Marc Salon in a case against GM Sales involving claims of passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair trade practices. The ruling underscores the protection of Marc Salon’s unique furniture designs and highlights the significance of intellectual property rights in the industry.

‘Controller under an obligation to inform inventor’ says Madras High Court

This post examines two crucial orders from the Madras High Court regarding patent refusals, highlighting the necessity for Controllers to provide detailed and well-reasoned orders. The cases of Nihon Onkyo Engineering Co. Ltd. and Qualcomm Incorporated demonstrate the importance of clarity in refusal decisions to facilitate judicial review and ensure transparency.

We cannot stop Yakshini, says the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has denied Pocket FM’s request for an interim injunction against Novi Digital’s television series “Yakshini.” Pocket FM claimed copyright infringement, citing similarities with its audio series. The court ruled that “Yakshini,” a mythological character, cannot be exclusively claimed by Pocket FM and that the case did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of copyright violation.

MRF’s Trademark Muscle Secures Victory in Dispute Against Powermax

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of MRF Limited in a trademark and copyright infringement case against Powermax Rubber Factory and Powermax Tyre, granting a permanent injunction and awarding nominal damages. The court found Powermax’s use of similar logos likely to cause consumer confusion and mislead the public.

Court Lifts injunction on Tractor-Forklift Design

The Madras High Court deliberated on whether a tractor fitted with a forklift can be considered a new vehicle and thus be eligible for design registration. The Court’s analysis focused on the novelty and innovation of the design, ultimately determining that such a combination was not new or original, leading to the vacation of an earlier injunction.

Another Dis’connected’ order by the registry, set aside by the Court

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a refusal order by a Senior Examiner of Trademarks against the registration of the trademark ‘ELECTRONICA.’ The Court directed a new hearing and a reasoned order, highlighting procedural fairness in trademark registration processes.

Delhi High Court Reverses Patent Office Decision: Honeywell’s Amendments Upheld

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Honeywell International Inc., overturning a refusal order by the Patent Office. The court emphasized the importance of fairness and the consideration of claims in conjunction with complete specifications, setting a precedent for thorough examination in patent matters.