In two recent decisions, the Madras High Court reversed patent application rejections under Section 3(i), clarifying that only diagnostic methods disclosing pathology per se fall within the exclusion. The Court remanded matters for fresh review, ensuring fair consideration and reasoned decisions by the IPO.
Read more about Section 3(i) Rejections Reversed: Diagnostic Methods Must Disclose Pathology Per SeBilling and Usage Data Invention Not a Business Method Under Section 3(k) of Patents Act
The Madras High Court has ruled in favour of Tekelec Inc., setting aside the rejection of its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act. The Court found the invention addressed a technical problem and did not constitute a business method, ordering a reassessment limited to software-related exclusions.
Read more about Billing and Usage Data Invention Not a Business Method Under Section 3(k) of Patents ActEpifi Outspeeds F1 Trademark in Court – No Use, No Rights!
The Delhi High Court cancelled the F1 trademark held by Formula One in Class 36 for non-use in India, following Epifi’s rectification petition. The decision reaffirms that trademark rights require genuine and ongoing use.
Read more about Epifi Outspeeds F1 Trademark in Court – No Use, No Rights!‘Parliament’ Isn’t Just for Politicians
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the use of “Parliament” as a trademark does not violate the Emblems and Names Act if used as a common noun. This ruling enables businesses to use such terms in branding, as long as they don’t imply a direct association with governmental institutions.
Read more about ‘Parliament’ Isn’t Just for PoliticiansAstrology Meets IP – Zodiac Strategies for the Week Ahead (June 8–14)
In this week’s IP-Astro edition, we take a fun and imaginative look at how each zodiac sign might symbolically approach intellectual property decisions as the Sun enters Gemini. From brand protection to licensing, these reflections are meant to spark creative thinking around IP—not to be taken as serious astrology or legal advice. It’s all in good spirit and for entertainment only!
Read more about Astrology Meets IP – Zodiac Strategies for the Week Ahead (June 8–14)IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary Liability
In a trademark infringement dispute between IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd. (“IndiaMART”) and PUMA SE (“PUMA”), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a prior injunction restraining IndiaMART from offering the PUMA trademark as an option in its seller registration drop-down menu. The Court permitted IndiaMART to continue offering trademark-based menu items and search terms, subject to obligations regarding takedown of infringing listings.
Read more about IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary LiabilityITC’s Nicotine Device Patent Rejection on Public Health Grounds Set Aside
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the refusal of ITC’s patent application for a nicotine aerosol device. The Court found that the Controller’s reliance on morality grounds under Section 3(b) was improper and unsupported by cited documents, ensuring a fresh review of the patent.
Read more about ITC’s Nicotine Device Patent Rejection on Public Health Grounds Set AsidePatent for Enzyme-Based Animal Feed Supplementation Cleared of Section 3(i) Refusal
The Madras High Court has allowed Kemin Industries’ patent on an enzyme-based animal feed method, overturning the Controller’s Section 3(i) refusal. The Court ruled that the method involves feed supplementation rather than treatment, confirming novelty and inventive step in the process.
Read more about Patent for Enzyme-Based Animal Feed Supplementation Cleared of Section 3(i) RefusalAnti-Cancer Patent Refusal Set Aside for Not Identifying ‘Known Substance’
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of an anti-cancer patent filed by Taiho Pharmaceutical. The Court highlighted that objections under Section 3(d) must explicitly state the “known substance” being referenced and directed a fresh hearing for proper assessment.
Read more about Anti-Cancer Patent Refusal Set Aside for Not Identifying ‘Known Substance’All May Use “One for All” — But None May Own It
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited (“Oswaal Books”) challenging the refusal of their trademark application for the phrase “ONE FOR ALL.” The Court upheld the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision, and came to the conclusion that the applied mark was devoid of any inherent or acquired distinctiveness.
Read more about All May Use “One for All” — But None May Own It