Intellectual Property | Intellepedia

Winning the Race for ‘X1’: A Trademark Dispute Resolved

X1-branded jetski races ahead on a track as cars chase.

The Delhi District Court resolved the X1 trademark dispute between Ashish Aggarwal and M/s Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd by granting a permanent injunction. The judgment upholds the enforceability of trademark rights in sports event branding and addresses issues of infringement, jurisdiction, and profits.

Glucon-D and Glucon-C Trademark Suit: Court Says Pre-Litigation Mediation is Mandatory

In the case of Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited, involving the trademarks “Glucon-D” and “Glucon-C”, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that plaintiffs must mandatorily attempt pre-litigation mediation before filing commercial suits, unless there is a clear and justifiable urgency requiring interim relief. The Court examined the timeline of the plaintiff’s actions and found no genuine urgency to bypass the mediation step.

Pharmacyclics Divisional Patent Application Upheld by Calcutta High Court

3D molecular structures illustrating chemical bonding and a detailed fluorinated organic compound model with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and fluorine atoms

Calcutta High Court upholds Pharmacyclics divisional patent application for ibrutinib-anti-CD20 therapy, interpreting Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.

From Refusal to Reconsideration: A Second Chance for Zhejiang’s Hair Dye Patent

Hairbrush and bowl of white hair dye cream beside a brown hair lock; banner text: A Fresh Review for Hair Dye Patent

Madras High Court gives Zhejiang’s hair dye patent a new lease on life, quashing an unreasoned refusal and directing a fresh, reasoned hearing.

Products Made During Patent Term are Infringing Even After Expiry

In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim v. Femilab Healthcare, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that interim injunctions granted to prevent patent infringement cannot continue after the patent has expired. The court held that such relief loses effect with the end of the patent term. However, it stated that infringing products made during the patent’s validity may still be restrained from being sold or used after the patent expires.

No Trademark Infringement by Registered Proprietor

A brass camphor burner with white camphor crystals on a wooden table, surrounded by incense sticks and flower petals.

The Bombay High Court ruled that no trademark infringement or passing off was established against the registered proprietor of KARPURE and AIR KARPURE. The Court found the marks and trade dress sufficiently distinct, dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for interim relief.

Amgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High Court

Banner with lab test tubes and a microscope; text reads 'Amgen’s Peptibody Patent Refusal Overturned' following Madras High Court ruling

Madras High Court backs Amgen on lyophilized peptibody formulations, rejecting Section 3(d), 3(e) and inventive step objections. Grant directed, with claims narrowed to supported sequences.

Yatra Trademark Claim Rejected: No Monopoly Over Common Travel Terms, Says Court

In the case of Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited, the Delhi High Court examined whether a travel company could claim exclusive rights over the term ‘YATRA’. Concluding that the mark was descriptive and not distinctive, the Court refused to restrain the defendant from using a similar mark.

Oral Insulin Patent Case: Efficacy Not a Requirement Under Section 3(e)

In the case of Oramed Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents & Designs, the Calcutta High Court examined the refusal of a patent for an oral insulin composition. The Court held that inventive step cannot be determined by combining prior art without a clear rationale and stated that therapeutic efficacy is not a requirement under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act. The refusal order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Cannot raise new ground while refusing patent, rules Delhi High Court

Illustration with text "New grounds for patent refusal?" in orange font on a light purple background, alongside a yellow hand pointing upward with the word "NO" repeated on each finger.

Delhi HC set aside a patent refusal against Proprietect L P, citing violation of natural justice, failure to consider amended claims, and lack of reasoning.