Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Madras High Court overturned the Indian Patent Office’s decision to reject Imclone’s patent application for a monoclonal antibody to treat metastatic bone cancer. The Court disagreed with the Patent Office’s view that the antibody was merely “discovered in nature” and not an invention.

Kannada Lyricist Hamsalekha Wins Copyright Case Against Saavn

The Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of lyricist Hamsalekha in a copyright dispute against Saavn. Saavn argued that Hamsalekha doesn’t have the right to sue because he assigned his rights to IPRS, a copyright society. The Court disagreed as Hamsalekha retained the right to claim authorship and seek proper attribution even if IPRS licensed his works.

Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI

The Delhi High Court dismissed Lava’s attempt to revoke Ericsson’s patents based on alleged misrepresentation. The Court highlighted the high burden of proof needed and found Lava to have failed to demonstrate intentional deceit by Ericsson.

Former Employees can use the Diamond Colouring Technology of their Employer, confirms the Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court upheld a lower Court decision denying an injunction to a diamond company (Sonani Industries) against its former employees who started a competing business using similar technology. The Court found the technology wasn’t confidential and employees can’t be restricted from competition.

ITC Protects “Gold Flake” Brand: Court Halts Sale of Deceptively Similar Cigarettes

ITC Limited, the owner of the “Gold Flake” trademark for cigarettes, successfully obtained an injunction against competitors using confusingly similar brands like “Gold Falcon” and “Gold Flicker”.

Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunction

A Taiwanese adhesive tape company successfully obtained an injunction against a competitor using “Reindeer” and “Reindeer Wonder” trademarks on PVC pipes. The Court found these marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “Deer” brand and intended to mislead customers.

Ad Agency sues Jindal Steels for Copyright Infringement

An advertising agency, Wieden+Kennedy, sued Jindal Steel for copyright infringement. Wieden+Kennedy claims Jindal Steel’s commercial copied their work product, despite not paying for the full project. The court found some similarities but didn’t rule on infringement. Since the contract included arbitration clause, the court directed the parties to settle through arbitration and asked Jindal Steel to deposit a security sum to prevent the commercial’s broadcast.

No more ‘Social’izing for Social chai

The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against a restaurant/café operating under the name of Social Chai. The Court held that the addition of the suffix “CHAI” to “SOCIAL” is insufficient to effectively differentiate the Defendant’s mark from that of the Plaintiff’s, especially due to the identical domain of restaurant services.

Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts

In this infringement and passing off case filed by Sun Pharma against Glenmark, the Court was asked to determine if the trademark “INDAMET” infringes upon the trademark “ISTAMET XR CP”. Sun Pharma’s “ISTAMET XR CP” was registered in 2014 by its predecessor in title, and Glenmark’s trademark, INDAMET, was registered in 2021.

Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement

The dispute centers on the “PEBBLE” mark used by V Guard and Crompton. V Guard, adopting it in 2013 for electric water heaters, clashed with Crompton’s 2020 application for “CROMPTON PEBBLE” for electric irons. Delhi High Court’s injunction restrained Crompton from using “PEBBLE,” citing Trade Marks Act violations. The Court upheld V Guard’s reputation, dismissing Crompton’s appeal.