The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the DOUBLE KABOOTER trademark, citing prior use and deceptive similarity with DABAL KABUTER BRAND. This case highlights the importance of accurate trademark claims and evidence in Indian law.
Read more about Court says infringing brand ‘Double Kabooter’ Jaa Jaa JaaSnack Wars: Haldiram’s Battle for Brand Supremacy
This post explores Haldiram’s successful legal action against trademark infringement, resulting in permanent injunctions and damages. It discusses the judicial recognition of Haldiram as a well-known mark, reflecting broader implications for brand protection in India.
Read more about Snack Wars: Haldiram’s Battle for Brand SupremacyLost in the Inbox? Delhi High Court Saves Dabur’s Trademark Application
The Delhi High Court restored Dabur’s trademark application for Odonil Mystic Rose, citing procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in serving the notice of opposition. The judgment reinforces the importance of fair opportunity and natural justice in trademark proceedings.
Read more about Lost in the Inbox? Delhi High Court Saves Dabur’s Trademark ApplicationCancerous Battle: Novartis and NATCO clash over Eltrombopag
The Delhi High Court Division Bench set aside an injunction against Natco Pharma in the Novartis Eltrombopag patent dispute. The judgment provides key guidance on patent validity challenges and the requirements under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act in pharmaceutical cases.
Read more about Cancerous Battle: Novartis and NATCO clash over EltrombopagThe Court refuses to remove names of Trademark Officers from the order
The Delhi High Court refused to remove trademark officers’ names from an order regarding delayed opposition filings. The judgment emphasises the need for transparency and adherence to limitation periods in trademark matters.
Read more about The Court refuses to remove names of Trademark Officers from the orderSufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part X
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Ericsson vs Lava addresses sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act. The Court found Ericsson’s patents to be sufficiently disclosed, rejecting Lava’s revocation claims.
Read more about Sufficiency of Disclosure – Ericsson vs Lava – Part XLights out for “Everyday” Lighters : Injunction in favour of EVEREADY
The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against KSC Industries, restraining them from using the EVERYDAY mark, which was found similar to Eveready’s well-known EVEREADY trademarks. The Court considered visual, structural, and phonetic similarities and recognised the potential for consumer confusion.
Read more about Lights out for “Everyday” Lighters : Injunction in favour of EVEREADYTransparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear grounds
The Delhi High Court has reiterated the need for transparency in patent refusal orders, stating that clear grounds must be provided. The judgment highlights the importance of detailed reasoning and independent assessment of each claim in patent applications.
Read more about Transparency Triumphs : Patent Refusals must elucidate clear groundsIndian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (May 3rd to 10th)
This report analyses Indian patent and design statistics for the week of May 3rd to 10th, 2024, offering a comprehensive overview of trends and city-wise distributions. Key figures and comparative insights provide clarity on the evolving IP landscape in India.
Read more about Indian Patent and Design Statistics 2024 (May 3rd to 10th)Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX
The Delhi High Court’s analysis in Ericsson vs. Lava addresses the novelty and inventive step of key standard essential patents for 3G and EDGE technology. This post summarises the court’s findings on the technical advancements and legal standards applied in evaluating Ericsson’s patents, maintaining a clear and factual legal perspective.
Read more about Novelty and Inventive Step analysis (Part B) – Ericsson Vs. Lava – Part IX