Intellepedia | Page 41 of 305

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Madras High Court held that Section 3c of the Patents Act, 1970 does not exclude engineered non-living substances from patent protection. The ruling clarifies the distinction between discovery and invention for biotechnology patents in India.

Kannada Lyricist Hamsalekha Wins Copyright Case Against Saavn

The Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of Hamsalekha, confirming that authors retain moral rights and the ability to seek name credit, even after assigning rights to IPRS. The Court clarified that such disputes are not necessarily commercial in nature under Indian copyright law.

Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI

The Delhi High Court in Ericsson vs Lava clarified that revocation of a patent on the ground of misrepresentation requires strong, clear evidence of intentional deceit. In this case, Lava failed to meet the legal threshold, resulting in rejection of its revocation claim.

Former Employees can use the Diamond Colouring Technology of their Employer, confirms the Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court refused to grant an injunction to Sonani Industries against its former employees for using diamond colouring technology, citing a lack of proprietary confidential information and the expiry of the relevant know-how agreement. The Court also clarified that issues of copyright infringement would be examined during the ongoing trial.

ITC Protects “Gold Flake” Brand: Court Halts Sale of Deceptively Similar Cigarettes

The Delhi High Court has restrained several parties from selling cigarettes using deceptively similar marks to ITC’s Gold Flake brand, citing clear infringement and passing off. This decision underscores the judicial approach to protecting well-known trademarks in India.

Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunction

The Delhi High Court ruled that non-use of a trademark does not automatically bar injunctive relief if deceptive similarity and consumer confusion are present. The Court emphasized that trademark protection persists despite periods of non-use, provided legal criteria for an injunction are satisfied.

Ad Agency sues Jindal Steels for Copyright Infringement

Wieden Kennedy sued Jindal Steel for copyright infringement over an advertisement, leading to a Delhi High Court order for arbitration and a monetary deposit. The Court declined an interim injunction, citing balance of convenience and contractual arbitration provisions.

No more ‘Social’izing for Social chai

The Delhi High Court has restrained Social Chai from using the “SOCIAL” mark, finding trademark infringement and a likelihood of consumer confusion. The dispute highlights the importance of trademark protection in the restaurant industry.

Exacting Standards for Pharma Trademarks and their Dominant Parts

The post discusses the high standards Indian courts apply to pharma trademark infringement, particularly the need to avoid consumer confusion between medicinal products. It highlights judicial reasoning and established legal principles on the scrutiny of dominant trademark parts in the pharmaceutical sector.

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 is not necessary for relief under Section 29(4) if reputation in India is proven.