Intellepedia | Page 3 of 293

Patent Upheld, Design Dismissed: Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation – Part 1: Infringement & Relief

Illustration showing two people in discussion on the left and a justice scale on the right, with the text in between: “Dura-Line to Jain Irrigation: We Patented It. You Replicated It.” on a light green background.

This post analyzes the Delhi High Court’s decision in Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation, where the Court found patent infringement but rejected the design infringement claim.

Dunlop Trademark Dispute: Eight Opposed Registrations Set Aside by Calcutta High Court

Image showing Industrial factory setting with conveyor belts and workers handling tyres and materials, overlaid with the text 'Dunlop Trademark Dispute' and gavel icons, symbolising a legal dispute over trademark rights.

In a series of eight appeals concerning trademark oppositions filed by Dunlop International Limited against Glorious Investment Limited, the Calcutta High Court set aside orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks allowing Glorious Investment to register the mark “DUNLOP” in various classes. The Court held that the Registrar’s decisions were procedurally flawed, unreasoned, and passed in violation of natural justice.

Astrology Meets IP – Zodiac Strategies for the Week Ahead (June 14–20)

Bright yellow background with a dreamcatcher, a lit red candle, and a zodiac wheel chart featuring astrological symbols. The text "Astrology Meets IP – Zodiac Strategies for the Week Ahead" is prominently displayed in a stylish font.

In this week’s IP-Astro post, we explore how cosmic trends align with intellectual property strategies. From filing NDAs and trademarks to tackling social media misuse and digital licensing, each zodiac sign gets a dose of planetary humour with legal wisdom. Perfect for brand builders and IP lovers alike.

Design Piracy and Self-Inking Stamps: How the Informed Observer Test Saved Addprint

A visual comparison of two self-inking stamp designs—Addprint's and Trodat Flashy 6904—showcasing multiple differences. On the left, Addprint's design features include a smoky curved top cover, a dug-out shape on the bottom of the top cover, and two line grips connected with a dugged bottom line. On the right, Trodat's design includes a crystal clear top cover, a plain fluent back body face, a four-line grip, smooth bottom and top covers, a dugged bottom cover, an air ventilator, and a top cover with a hole. At the centre is a colourful graphic stating “SAME SAME But DIFFERENT” alongside stick figures holding mismatched puzzle pieces, symbolising design differences.

In a design piracy case involving self-inking stamps, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Trodat GmbH and its affiliate against an order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises to manufacture and market a redesigned stamp. The Court held that the proposed design did not amount to piracy under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000.

Section 3(i) Rejections Reversed: Diagnostic Methods Must Disclose Pathology Per Se

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.

Billing and Usage Data Invention Not a Business Method Under Section 3(k) of Patents Act

A smiling woman in an office uses billing software on her computer, with a large “PATENTED” seal displayed over the screen, signifying the billing software has received patent protection.

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.

Epifi Outspeeds F1 Trademark in Court – No Use, No Rights!

Two cars racing side-by-side toward a checkered finish line with a waving finish flag; one car with FI MONEY written on it leads as it speed past the car with F1 on it.

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.

‘Parliament’ Isn’t Just for Politicians

Illustration of the Indian Parliament building with the national flag atop, captured during golden hour. A 'TRADEMARK' stamp is superimposed on the right side of the image, symbolising legal or intellectual property context.

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.

Astrology 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!

IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary Liability

A man carrying a box walks on a running track that leads into a web browser window, symbolizing entry into an online marketplace.

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.