Delhi High Court issues injunction against Software Piracy

Software giant Bentley Systems successfully obtained an injunction from the Delhi High Court against a company for copyright infringement of its software programs. This case highlights the legal recourse available to software companies in India to protect their intellectual property.

Read more about Delhi High Court issues injunction against Software Piracy

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) must clearly and unambiguously articulate objections to patent applications. This case involved Microsoft’s patent application for “Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves,” which was rejected by the IPO for lacking inventive step and violating disclosure requirements. The Court found the IPO’s objections to be ambiguous and procedurally irregular, thereby stressing on fair hearings and proper communication during the patent examination process.

Read more about Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

The Madras High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that rejected Microsoft’s patent application for “Message Communication of Sensor and other Data.” The Court clarified that the “person skilled in the art” (PSITA) used to assess the inventive step is not omniscient and cannot be presumed to possess the inventive solution claimed in the patent.

Read more about PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

Kalyan Jewellers successfully defended its trademarks ‘Kalyan’ and ‘Kalyan Jewellers’ against cybersquatting through a recent Madras High Court ruling. The Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name “kalyanjewellers.com” to Kalyan Jewellers after the WIPO arbitration panel couldn’t decide on the case due to the requirement of proving bad faith.

Read more about Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

Court orders Meesho to display Seller Information and comply with Ecommerce Rules

The Delhi High Court recently ordered Meesho, a popular e-commerce platform, to display full seller information and comply with E-Commerce rules. This decision comes after a copyright infringement case filed by a clothing brand, Abhi Traders, against Meesho and several unknown sellers who were using Abhi Traders’ copyrighted designs and images without permission. The Court highlighted the importance of e-commerce platforms taking responsibility to prevent copyright infringement and ensuring transparency by displaying seller information.

Read more about Court orders Meesho to display Seller Information and comply with Ecommerce Rules

Trademark removal only after notice, and Fly Hi/Timespro Injunctions

Recent trademark cases include injunctions against ‘Fly Hi’ and ‘Timespro’ by the Delhi High Court, and a pivotal Bombay High Court decision on renewal notices for trademark removal. These cases highlight the courts’ proactive stance in protecting registered trademarks and ensuring proper procedural adherence for trademark renewal and removal, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action.

Read more about Trademark removal only after notice, and Fly Hi/Timespro Injunctions

Prosecution History Estoppel applies to trademark cases, confirms the Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the “prosecution history estoppel” principle applies to trademark cases. This means that statements made during the trademark registration process about similarities with other trademarks can be used against the applicant in future infringement lawsuits. The Court also emphasized the importance of disclosing all relevant information, including prosecution history, in trademark lawsuits.

Read more about Prosecution History Estoppel applies to trademark cases, confirms the Bombay High Court.