The Delhi High Court has restrained Social Chai from using the “SOCIAL” mark, finding trademark infringement and a likelihood of consumer confusion. The dispute highlights the importance of trademark protection in the restaurant industry.
Read more about No more ‘Social’izing for Social chaiCategory: Case Reviews
Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts
The post discusses the high standards Indian courts apply to pharma trademark infringement, particularly the need to avoid consumer confusion between medicinal products. It highlights judicial reasoning and established legal principles on the scrutiny of dominant trademark parts in the pharmaceutical sector.
Read more about Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant PartsWell-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement
This post discusses a Delhi High Court decision on trademark infringement involving the mark “PEBBLE” used by V Guard and Crompton. The Court held that a well-known mark is not necessary for relief under Section 29(4) if reputation in India is proven.
Read more about Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringementSEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5
This post discusses the Delhi High Court’s approach to awarding actual costs in the Ericsson v Lava standard essential patent litigation. It outlines the legal principles applied and analyses the Court’s reasoning, focusing on party conduct and litigation strategy in determining cost awards.
Read more about SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4
This post discusses how the Delhi High Court assessed infringement of standard essential patents in Ericsson v. Lava, evaluating claim charts and the two-step infringement test. The court’s structured approach clarifies key aspects of SEP litigation in India.
Read more about Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3
This post discusses patent hold up, royalty stacking, and hold out in the context of the Ericsson v Lava dispute. The analysis highlights the Court’s reliance on evidence while addressing FRAND licensing arguments and SEP enforcement in India.
Read more about Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.
The Delhi High Court encouraged settlement in a dispute between PPL and Neb Sports over alleged unlicensed public performance of sound recordings at sporting events. The case highlights the importance of copyright compliance for event organisers in India.
Read more about Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed
The Delhi High Court dismissed Google’s appeal against the rejection of its patent application, finding no inventive step over prior art. A fine of Rs.1 lakh was also imposed on Google for incorrect disclosure regarding its European patent application.
Read more about Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposedCiting gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal
The Delhi High Court dismissed CEAT’s appeal against the refusal of its FARMAX trademark, citing substantial delay and likelihood of confusion with prior marks. The court found the marks similar and the goods closely related, upholding the Registrar’s refusal.
Read more about Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appealSection 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2
This post analyses the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of Section 3(k) in Ericsson vs Lava, focusing on the patentability of algorithms and computer programs in India. It clarifies the assessment criteria for such inventions and the legislative intent behind software patentability.
Read more about Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2