Case Reviews | Intellepedia

Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent application for AI-integrated persona augmentation. The Court ruled that the invention lacked sufficient technical detail, inventive step, and patent-eligible subject matter under the Patents Act. It upheld the Controller’s decision, emphasizing the absence of tangible technical effects and clear disclosure requirements.

Trademark Licensing vs. Assignment: Madras HC on ROYALCHEF Dispute

The Madras High Court ruled that the licensing of the ROYALCHEF trademark does not restrict the licensor’s rights. In a dispute between Quality Chef Agro Foods and ADF Trading, the Court analyzed trademark ownership, assignment, and licensing agreements. It concluded that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no exclusive right to the mark and could not prevent the licensor from exporting goods under the same brand.

Dhanush v. Nayanthara: Netflix denied an exit pass in copyright violation case

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Wunderbar Films in its copyright dispute with Netflix over the unauthorized use of behind-the-scenes footage. Netflix’s applications challenging jurisdiction and seeking rejection of the plaint were dismissed. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction was valid, pre-suit mediation was not mandatory due to urgency, and combining statutory and common law remedies was permissible.

Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i)

The Delhi High Court, in Syngenta Crop Protection AG vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, examined the rejection of an Indian patent application under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Court ruled that plant treatment methods are distinct from agricultural processes, referring to the 2003 amendment to Section 3(i), and remanded the case for fresh examination with amended claims.

‘Big Dipper’ trademark infringement case, ruling on transborder reputation and importers’ rights

The Delhi High Court ruled on a trademark dispute between ‘Big Dipper’ and ‘Big Deeper,’ setting aside an ex parte injunction. The case centered on the assertion of transborder reputation by importers of the ‘Big Dipper’ mark. The Court relied on precedent to determine that mere global reputation is insufficient to claim trademark protection in India. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Court clarifies distinction between business methods and technical inventions in section 3(k) related case

The Delhi High Court set aside the Indian Patent Office’s rejection of Comviva Technologies Limited’s patent application under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court recognized that the invention provided a technical advancement in securing electronic payment transactions. It directed the Patent Office to proceed with granting the patent, subject to any further objections under the law.

Shoes, footwears and deceptive similarity in Trademark law

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of New Balance Athletics, Inc., restraining Kiran Shoe Company from infringing its trademarks. The Court awarded ₹7,00,000 in damages and costs, emphasizing that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and aimed at leveraging New Balance’s reputation.

Evaluation of Technical Advancement and Compliance with CRI Guidelines under Indian Patent Law

The Madras High Court allowed Idemia Identity & Security France’s appeal, setting aside a refusal order under Section 3(k) for a cryptography patent. The Court ruled the order as a non-speaking one and in violation of natural justice. It directed fresh consideration of the matter, emphasizing technical contributions and adherence to CRI and European guidelines.

Court reiterates importance of protecting consumers from confusion in case of pharma products

The Delhi High Court deliberated a trademark infringement case between Modi MundiPharma and Win Health Pharma. Allegations of deceptively similar trademarks in pharmaceutical products were raised, with the Court emphasizing the risk of consumer confusion. The application to challenge the validity of the defendant’s marks was disposed of, framing key issues on the marks’ invalidity.

“ACTIV” Trademark watch by CASTROL leads to win against deceptively similar mark

The Delhi High Court granted Castrol Limited a permanent injunction and damages for trademark and copyright infringement against defendants marketing deceptively similar lubricants. The judgment highlights the significance of protecting established trademarks and the legal remedies available in Indian courts.