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.
Read more about A battle for respect : Svamaan Financial Takes on Sammaan Capital in Trademark caseReasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates
Featured image for article: 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.
Read more about Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiteratesCounterfeit 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.
Read more about Counterfeit books sold on Amazon, Allahabad Law Agency obtains injunctionKnowledge Theft : Property includes Intellectual Property, affirms Supreme court
The Supreme Court of India upheld the Bombay High Court’s interpretation that intellectual property, including research data, qualifies as ‘property’ under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This decision enables victims of caste-based atrocities to claim compensation for loss of intellectual assets. The ruling affirms the protection of knowledge-based assets and expands the legal definition of property under the Act.
Read more about Knowledge Theft : Property includes Intellectual Property, affirms Supreme courtCan you reuse a discarded bottle to refill and sell your own goods or products?
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of Mount Everest Breweries Ltd., prohibiting the reuse of embossed beer bottles. The decision upheld the Excise Commissioner’s order, stating that reusing marked bottles leads to consumer deception and violates intellectual property rights. The appeal overturned the previous order, reinforcing legal protections for trademarks in the beer industry.
Read more about Can you reuse a discarded bottle to refill and sell your own goods or products?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.
Read more about Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona PatentTrademark 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.
Read more about Trademark Licensing vs. Assignment: Madras HC on ROYALCHEF DisputeDhanush 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.
Read more about Dhanush v. Nayanthara: Netflix denied an exit pass in copyright violation caseClarifying 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.
Read more about Clarifying Patentability of Plant Treatment Methods under Section 3(h) and 3(i)The Draft guidelines for AYUSH Patent Applications
The Intellectual Property (IP) Office has issued Draft Guidelines for the processing of patent applications related to AYUSH systems and related inventions. These guidelines aim to streamline the evaluation process of patent applications concerning Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, and Homeopathy.
Read more about The Draft guidelines for AYUSH Patent Applications