Intellepedia | Page 10 of 293

The Battle for Respect continues: Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial

The Delhi High Court addressed the appeals in the Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial trademark dispute. The case involved phonetic similarity, consumer confusion, and corporate branding rights. The Court maintained the status quo, requiring disclaimers in advertisements and setting a final hearing for April 2025.

CGPDTM Headquarters Relocated to New Delhi: Official Notification

Headquartes of Indian Patent office relocated to Delhi

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has announced the relocation of the CGPDTM headquarters to New Delhi, as per the Gazette of India notification dated February 25, 2025. The new office is now operational at Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Dwarka, New Delhi. This move aims to enhance coordination with central regulatory bodies and improve India’s intellectual property administration.

Amazon Ordered to Pay ₹336 Crore in Damages for Willful Trademark Infringement

The Delhi High Court has ordered Amazon Technologies, Inc. to pay ₹336 crore in damages for willful trademark infringement of the Beverly Hills Polo Club logo. The ruling also includes ₹3.23 crore in litigation costs and a permanent injunction against Amazon. The case, filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Lifestyle Licensing B.V., highlights Amazon’s liability in unauthorized brand usage.

Thomson Reuters vs ROSS Intelligence : Does training AI models amount to fair use?

The US District Court for Delaware ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters, finding that ROSS Intelligence infringed Westlaw’s copyrights by using its headnotes and editorial content for AI training. The Court rejected ROSS’s fair use defense, emphasizing market harm and the need for AI developers to license copyrighted materials. While granting partial summary judgment to Thomson Reuters, the Court left certain copyright expiration claims for jury determination. This decision reinforces copyright protections in legal research and sets a precedent for AI-related copyright disputes.

Frivolous inventions and abstract theories – Delhi High Court refuses patent appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a patent application due to lack of novelty and a significant procedural delay of 701 days. The appellants, who had filed a patent application for black-colored wearables with claimed effects on human energy, failed to provide scientific evidence or technical merit. The court upheld the Indian Patent Office’s decision, emphasizing that abstract ideas are not patentable and reaffirming the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines for appeals.

“DREAM FREEDOM” Trademark removed from register for Deceptive Similarity

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. in a trademark rectification petition, directing the removal of the “DREAM FREEDOM” mark from the Register of Trade Marks. The court found that the respondent had deceptively adopted the mark and trade dress of Gemini’s “FREEDOM” brand, leading to potential consumer confusion. The ruling reinforced the principles of prior use and deceptive similarity in trademark law.

Patent Abandonment Overturned: Delhi HC Rules on FER Miscommunication

The Delhi High Court set aside the deemed abandonment of Waterotor’s Indian patent application, citing miscommunication regarding the First Examination Report (FER). The Court ruled that the lack of timely FER receipt justified reinstatement, directing the Patent Office to restore the application’s status to “pending” and allow a response within four weeks.

A battle for respect : Svamaan Financial Takes on Sammaan Capital in Trademark case

In a significant trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Svamaan Financial Services, granting an interim injunction against Sammaan Capital Limited and its affiliates. The Court found that the defendants’ marks were deceptively similar to Svamaan, potentially misleading consumers. The ruling reinforces the importance of brand identity and legal recourse in financial services.

Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

The Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal in Signal Pharmaceuticals vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, citing a lack of reasoning in the rejection order. The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to address the applicant’s arguments, disregarded amended claims, and provided no justification for the refusal under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration, reinforcing the necessity of well-reasoned patent orders.

Counterfeit books sold on Amazon, Allahabad Law Agency obtains injunction

In Allahabad Law Agency v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction against online sellers distributing counterfeit copies of Law of Torts by Dr. R.K. Bangia. The Court found copyright and trademark infringement but declined to award damages, granting nominal costs of Rs. 15,000 to the Plaintiff.