Madras High Court backs Amgen on lyophilized peptibody formulations, rejecting Section 3(d), 3(e) and inventive step objections. Grant directed, with claims narrowed to supported sequences.
Read more about Amgen’s Lyophilized Peptibody Patent Upheld by Madras High CourtActor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Flag Use Allowed as Court Finds No Prima Facie Trademark or Copyright Violation
In the case of G B Pachaiyappan vs Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, the Madras High Court addressed claims of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against a political party over its use of a flag allegedly similar to one adopted earlier by a social trust. The court declined to grant interim injunctions.
Read more about Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Flag Use Allowed as Court Finds No Prima Facie Trademark or Copyright ViolationYatra Trademark Claim Rejected: No Monopoly Over Common Travel Terms, Says Court
In the case of Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited, the Delhi High Court examined whether a travel company could claim exclusive rights over the term ‘YATRA’. Concluding that the mark was descriptive and not distinctive, the Court refused to restrain the defendant from using a similar mark.
Read more about Yatra Trademark Claim Rejected: No Monopoly Over Common Travel Terms, Says CourtOral Insulin Patent Case: Efficacy Not a Requirement Under Section 3(e)
In the case of Oramed Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents & Designs, the Calcutta High Court examined the refusal of a patent for an oral insulin composition. The Court held that inventive step cannot be determined by combining prior art without a clear rationale and stated that therapeutic efficacy is not a requirement under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act. The refusal order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Read more about Oral Insulin Patent Case: Efficacy Not a Requirement Under Section 3(e)Cannot raise new ground while refusing patent, rules Delhi High Court
Delhi HC set aside a patent refusal against Proprietect L P, citing violation of natural justice, failure to consider amended claims, and lack of reasoning.
Read more about Cannot raise new ground while refusing patent, rules Delhi High CourtDisco Dancer Copyright in Court: Remake, Adaptation, or Sequel?
In a recent case involving the iconic film Disco Dancer, the Bombay High Court examined whether a stage musical and a proposed new film were a remake, an adaptation, or a sequel. The Court held that the musical was an adaptation covered by Shemaroo’s rights, but refused to restrain the new film since Shemaroo had not pleaded infringement in its plaint. The order pointed out the difference between remake, adaptation, and sequel under Indian copyright law.
Read more about Disco Dancer Copyright in Court: Remake, Adaptation, or Sequel?Delhi High Court Patent Injunction: Aquestia Wins Against Automat Industries
Delhi High Court grants patent injunction to Aquestia, stopping Automat from selling Hydromat valves over suspected patent infringement.
Read more about Delhi High Court Patent Injunction: Aquestia Wins Against Automat IndustriesNewer ‘Blue-Jay’ Mark knocked off the League
The Delhi High Court has struck down the ‘BLUE-JAY’ trademark, siding with Major League Baseball against PMS Creations. The Court held that MLB’s prior use and transborder reputation trumped the respondents’ registration, which was tainted by dishonesty and bad faith.
Read more about Newer ‘Blue-Jay’ Mark knocked off the LeagueTrademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the Rocks
In the case of Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the Supreme Court of India considered whether the respondent’s use of the mark “LONDON PRIDE” for whisky prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants alleged that the respondent copied elements of their registered marks “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S”, including their packaging, colour scheme, and embossed bottles. After reviewing the arguments and legal framework, the Court declined to grant interim relief, holding that the marks were not deceptively similar and that the term “PRIDE” could not be monopolised.
Read more about Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the RocksPatented But Still Infringing: Delhi HC Stops Hydromat Valve Sales
In the case of Aquestia Limited vs Automat Industries Private Limited & Ors., the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling their ‘Hydromat’ valves. The court held that even a patented product can infringe an earlier patent, and found that the defendants’ valves incorporated the core features of the plaintiff’s fluid control valve patent claims.
Read more about Patented But Still Infringing: Delhi HC Stops Hydromat Valve Sales