Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Oracle’s proprietary word ‘Java’ cannot be used in the domain name and the company name, says the Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court banned Javapoint companies from using the “Java” trademark for training and domain names. Though not part of their company names anymore, “Java” usage in services and domain is deemed infringing on Oracle’s trademark rights. This decision protects trademark ownership and sets a precedent for proper usage in the tech industry.

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

Madras High Court overturned patent refusal for “Image Construction Apparatus” due to insufficient reasoning from the Controller regarding inventive step and Section 3(k). The Court criticized failure to consider the fact that the European Patent Office (EPO) had granted a patent based on the same prior art references and the disregard to analyze technical aspects per Section 3(k).

Another dynamic plus order to curb online piracy from the Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court cracks down on piracy! In this case, the Court granted an injunction against 28 rogue websites pirating Universal Studios content. The injunction covers not just existing websites but also future versions and new ones that may arise. This applies to future Universal Studios content as well. ISPs and domain name registrars were ordered to block access and provide details of owners.

Where can you file Trademark Rectification Petitions? The Delhi High Court refers the question to a Larger Bench.

Delhi High Court split on jurisdiction for trademark rectification petitions: firstly stated any High Court, later restricted it to granting IP Office’s jurisdiction. The underlying point is differentiating Trade Marks Act from Patents and Designs Acts and emphasizing convenience for businesses.

R Indira Devi has no Copyrights over Guntur Sushendra Sharma’s “My Country My People”, says the Telangana High Court.

In this case, the Telangana High Court found that a letter written by the author in 1989 granting his son the copyrights was valid and that the author’s wife’s later assignments of the copyrights were not valid.

Refusal of a patent application based on prior art not cited in hearing notice set aside by the Delhi High Court

In this case the Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Controller of Patents refusing a patent application based on a ground not raised in the hearing notice. The refusal order was set aside as it lacked proper reasoning as required for inventive step analysis.

Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court.

In this case the Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Controller of Patents refusing a patent application. The refusal order was set aside as it lacked proper reasoning as required for inventive step analysis.

Trademark opposition timelines are mandatory, and must be complied strictly, says the Delhi High Court

In this case, the Delhi High Court explored if a trademark opposition be ‘deemed as abandoned’ if there was a delay in service of evidence by the opponent in the opposition. The Court also explained whether the timelines mentioned in the Trade Marks Act and Rules are mandatory or not.

Method of producing ‘protein enriched blood serum’ is not a method of treatment under Section 3(i), says the Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court reviewed whether new objections can be raised at the hearing stage of a Patent Application. The Court examined the claims and the refusal order, from the purview of Principles of Natural Justice.

‘Sri Sharanam Ayyappa’, ‘Dengue Don’ , and ‘Raashee’, Trademark Case Decisions

Recent trademark rulings by the Delhi and Bombay High Courts address infringement and damages in cases involving ‘Sri Sharanam Ayyappa’, ‘Dengue Don’, and ‘Raashee’ trademarks.