Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement
This post discusses a Delhi High Court decision on trademark infringement involving the mark "PEBBLE" used by V Guard and Crompton. The Court held that a well-known mark…
Intellectual Property
3,072 articles
SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5
This post discusses the Delhi High Court’s approach to awarding actual costs in the Ericsson v Lava standard essential patent litigation. It outlines the legal principles applied and…
Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4
This post discusses how the Delhi High Court assessed infringement of standard essential patents in Ericsson v. Lava, evaluating claim charts and the two-step infringement test. The court’s…
Call for Feedback: CGPDTM Service Excellence Survey 2024
The Office of CGPDTM has announced its Service Excellence Survey 2024 to collect stakeholder feedback for improving IP administration. Stakeholders are encouraged to submit their responses by 22…
Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3
This post discusses patent hold up, royalty stacking, and hold out in the context of the Ericsson v Lava dispute. The analysis highlights the Court's reliance on evidence…
Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.
The Delhi High Court encouraged settlement in a dispute between PPL and Neb Sports over alleged unlicensed public performance of sound recordings at sporting events. The case highlights…
Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed
The Delhi High Court dismissed Google’s appeal against the rejection of its patent application, finding no inventive step over prior art. A fine of Rs.1 lakh was also…
Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal
The Delhi High Court dismissed CEAT’s appeal against the refusal of its FARMAX trademark, citing substantial delay and likelihood of confusion with prior marks. The court found the…
Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2
This post analyses the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of Section 3(k) in Ericsson vs Lava, focusing on the patentability of algorithms and computer programs in India. It clarifies…
Website/Social Media and Accessibility Job Opening at BananaIP
BananaIP Counsels seeks a Digital Engagement and Website Management Specialist for its Bangalore office. The role demands expertise in WordPress, website accessibility, and digital engagement, with a focus…