BananaIP’s Indian Patent and Design Statistics Report 2024 highlights a 60% increase in patent publications, a 15% drop in grants, and reduced examination rates. Delhi and Chennai emerge as top contributors to filings, showcasing trends in India’s evolving IP landscape.
Read more about Indian Patent & Design Statistics Report – 2025Tag: BananaIP
Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunction
A Taiwanese adhesive tape company successfully obtained an injunction against a competitor using “Reindeer” and “Reindeer Wonder” trademarks on PVC pipes. The Court found these marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “Deer” brand and intended to mislead customers.
Read more about Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunctionCall for Feedback: CGPDTM Service Excellence Survey 2024
Participate in the CGPDTM Service Excellence Survey, 2024 to help shape the future of IP administration in our country. Share your feedback by April 22nd and contribute to the enhancement of intellectual property practices.
Read more about Call for Feedback: CGPDTM Service Excellence Survey 2024Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits
The Delhi High Court allowed an interlocutory injunction against the Defendants to restrict their use of the mark “TOWER” to manufacture and sell dry fruits. This Court stated that a defendant cannot determine the ambit of what constitutes “Plaintiff’s goods of interest”.
Read more about Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruitsThe Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.
The Delhi High Court has sent a trademark application for the word “Bharat” with a device back to the examiner for re-evaluation. While a previous court order ruled the mark distinctive, it failed to address objections about potential genericness. This case highlights the importance of a thorough trademark examination process.
Read more about The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc & Anr vs the Controller of Patents, accepted an appeal challenging the refusal...
Read more about Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High CourtPatent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration
The Delhi High Court has faulted the Patent Office for rejecting a patent application without adequate reasoning. The case involved a beverage can closure design, and the Controller’s decision lacked clarity and failed to address the applicant’s arguments effectively. The Court has sent the case back for a proper re-examination, highlighting the need for thoroughness in patent application reviews.
Read more about Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo considerationPatent (Amendment) Rules 2024 come into effect, significant changes introduced.
The Delhi High Court in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma addressed a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the anti-cancer drug Olaparib. To counter a patent infringement claim, the defendant needs to raise a plausible challenge to the patent’s validity. Patent coverage (what the patent protects) is distinct from the specific details disclosed in the patent document. This case involved a species patent (Olaparib) claimed within the scope of a broader genus patent.
Read more about Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 come into effect, significant changes introduced.Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.
The Delhi High Court in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma addressed a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the anti-cancer drug Olaparib. To counter a patent infringement claim, the defendant needs to raise a plausible challenge to the patent’s validity. Patent coverage (what the patent protects) is distinct from the specific details disclosed in the patent document. This case involved a species patent (Olaparib) claimed within the scope of a broader genus patent.
Read more about Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.The words ‘KONDRU’ and ‘LOBAN’ are Publici Juris, says the Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court ruled that common words like “KONDRU” and “LOBAN” in the context of ayurvedic products cannot be exclusively trademarked. This decision highlights the importance of distinctiveness in trademark registration.
Read more about The words ‘KONDRU’ and ‘LOBAN’ are Publici Juris, says the Delhi High Court