Intellectual Property | Intellepedia

Once the Hearing Is Fixed, the Door Closes on New Evidence in Patent Oppositions

In the case of M/s Hi Tech Chemicals Limited vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., the Madras High Court examined whether documents labeled as additional evidence could be admitted after the hearing was fixed in a post-grant patent opposition. The Court looked at the patent rules, and held that private documents do not qualify as “publications” under Rule 62(4), and are therefore not admissible after the hearing date was fixed.

Notarized document from a foreign Country must be accepted, says Calcutta High Court in Trademark case

A person stands facing three doors labeled "Foreign Notary," "Notary" (center), and "Indian Notary," symbolizing the dilemma of choosing between different types of notarization for legal documents.

Calcutta HC rules notarized foreign documents valid without apostille in Marriott trademark opposition, reinforcing fair procedure and natural justice.

Descriptiveness and Registrability of Composite Marks in Cancellation Proceedings

Scattered jigsaw puzzles with few puzzles with the words 'STORE', 'MY' and 'GOODS' and the images of a red house.

This post analyses a Delhi High Court decision on the registrability of composite marks in trademark cancellation proceedings. It underscores the importance of assessing marks as a whole and the evidentiary role of continuous use in such disputes.

The Bounce Trademark Dispute: Generic Marks in Salon Services

Salon mirror reflection with hair styling tools and lights.

The Bounce trademark dispute highlights the complexities of enforcing rights over generic marks in the salon industry. The Madras High Court’s interim order underscores the importance of trial evidence in determining exclusivity and infringement in descriptive trademark cases.

Use of copyright works for AI in India: One Nation One License One Payment

The DPIIT consultation paper ‘One Nation One License One Payment’ proposes a hybrid blanket licence–royalty framework for AI training on copyrighted works in India. This post sets out the proposed mechanism, key stakeholder positions and the timeline for filing comments with DPIIT.

Madras HC Awards ₹20 Lakhs Compensation in Amma Memorial Digital Project Dispute

In the background a museum with lighting visuals the overlay text reads, 'Amma memorial digital project dispute: The Case of Praveen Raj Jayachandran v. Fusion VR'

The Madras High Court resolved the Amma Memorial Digital Project dispute by awarding reasonable compensation for partial software development and concept creation. The judgement clarified copyright ownership, absence of profit-sharing rights, and the basis for determining damages in software-related project collaborations.

Trademark Trouble Brewing: What ‘COX 5001’ Got Wrong About ‘HAYWARDS 5000′

A bottle of Haywards 5000 beer placed centrally on a rustic stone table, surrounded by ripe red tomatoes, herbs, and a metal pot, styled like a still-life painting with warm, earthy tones.

Bombay High Court grants AB Inbev a permanent injunction against Jagpin’s “COX 5001” mark, ruling it infringes the “HAYWARDS 5000” and “FIVE THOUSAND” trademarks.

Ilaiyaraja Cannot License Naguva Nayana, Delhi HC Says Producer Owns Copyright

In the case of Saregama India Limited vs Black Madras Films & Ors, the Delhi High Court upheld the copyright ownership of the plaintiff over the song Naguva Nayana, rejecting composer Ilaiyaraja’s authority to license it. The Court said the defendants could release their film only after depositing a licence fee, if they continued to use the song.

Can Claims Presumptively Inherit the Priority Date of a Provisional Application?

Close-up of a person circling a date on a calendar, symbolizing checking timelines

In Rallis India Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Others, the Madras High Court refused to assume that claims automatically inherit the priority date of a provisional, especially where the crucial EC formulation emerges only in the complete specification. The decision pushes the Patent Office to treat priority and prior art questions as matters for analysis, not default settings.

Himalaya Trademark Infringement: Delhi HC Grants Injunction

Medicinal plants and mortar pestles, set in a light green background below the text, 'Himalaya Trademark Infringement– Delhi High Court'

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Himalaya Wellness, restraining Greenland Trading from using deceptively similar marks for ayurvedic products. The Court found a clear risk of consumer confusion and dilution of the well-known HIMALAYA trademark.