The Delhi High Court addressed trademark infringement claims over the use of ‘Smith’ for identical water purification products. The decision highlights the assessment of dominant trademark elements and the likelihood of confusion among Indian consumers.
Read more about A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?Category: Case Reviews
Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1
The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ericsson vs. Lava clarifies major legal standards for standard essential patents, FRAND royalties, and infringement in India. This case note examines the Court’s findings on patent validity, damages, and licensing practices in the telecom sector.
Read more about Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the FIELDMARSHAL trademark belongs to PM Diesel, recognising its prior, continuous, and legitimate use. Thukral’s claims were dismissed, and reliefs including actual litigation costs and registration of pending applications were granted to PM Diesel.
Read more about Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate UserDelhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.
The Delhi High Court overturned a patent refusal for a PCT national phase application, stressing the importance of procedural adherence in claim examination. The Court directed a fresh evaluation, emphasizing accurate application of legal provisions and detailed analysis of objections.
Read more about Delhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim injunction plea, holding that the use of the common surname JINDAL cannot be monopolised under trademark law. The court found no infringement or passing off, as the impugned mark was sufficiently distinct.
Read more about No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents, a recent decision by Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court recently addressed the interplay between the all elements rule and the doctrine of equivalents in a patent dispute over brick-making machines. The Court granted interim relief, affirming a nuanced approach to patent claim analysis and infringement in Indian law.
Read more about All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents, a recent decision by Delhi High CourtDelhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits
The Delhi High Court has restrained the use of the TOWER trademark on dry fruits, finding a risk of consumer confusion and breach of a prior undertaking. The order clarifies trademark enforcement boundaries and highlights the importance of respecting agreed limitations in Indian IP disputes.
Read more about Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruitsThe Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.
The Delhi High Court remitted the ‘Bharat’ trademark application to the Examiner for reconsideration, focusing on unresolved Section 11(1) objections. The Court clarified that the application must be advertised, preserving the statutory right of third parties to object before registration.
Read more about The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal, holding that applications must be assessed with thorough reasoning under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The judgment stresses the need for detailed analysis of inventive step and legal compliance in patent rejections.
Read more about Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High CourtPatent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration
The Delhi High Court set aside a patent refusal order under section 15 of the Patents Act, directing a de novo reconsideration. The case underscores the need for reasoned decisions in Indian patent law proceedings.
Read more about Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration