Bombay High Court | Intellepedia

What’s in a God’s Name? Siyaram Wins Trademark Battle in Bombay

Close-up macro photograph of premium suiting fabric in deep navy and charcoal grey, with a fine herringbone or pinstripe weave pattern. Along the selvedge edge, the word "Siyaram" appears subtly woven or embossed into the cloth in a slightly lighter thread.

Siyaram Silk Mills and Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited clashed before the Bombay High Court in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute over the “Siyaram” mark. Can a Hindu deity’s name be monopolised as a trademark? After eighteen years of litigation, the court’s answer tilts firmly in the textile giant’s favour.

Promised and Forgotten: How a Pre-Grant Opposition swallowed a hearing

A rusted file drawer label reading "Broken Promises" - representing the Controller of Patents' unfulfilled Section 14 hearing assurance in a pre-grant opposition case decided by the Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court, in AIC246 AG & Co. KG v. The Patent Office of India, has set aside a patent rejection that bypassed the mandatory Section 14 examination hearing, ruling that a pre-grant opposition hearing under Section 25(1) cannot substitute for an applicant’s statutory right to be heard before refusal.

Caught without a Helmet: The false pleadings that sank RYNOX’s Trademark suit

Rhinoceros in a motorcycle helmet riding a cruiser bike, illustrating the RYNOX vs RHYNOX trademark passing off case before the Bombay High Court

Rynox Gears and Steelite India both hold registered trademarks for motorcycle-related products – RYNOX and RHYNOX respectively. When Rynox sued Steelite for trademark infringement and passing off before the Bombay High Court, the court had to ask: can one registered proprietor infringe another’s mark, and did Rynox’s own pleadings doom its case?

No Breeze For Atomberg’s Design Claim: Bombay High Court Says Pigeon Fan Looks Different

llustration of a pigeon beside vintage fans representing the Atomberg v Stove Kraft design infringement and passing off dispute.

In the case of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v Stove Kraft Limited, the Bombay High Court dealt with a design infringement and passing off dispute relating to ceiling fans. Atomberg alleged that Stove Kraft’s Pigeon fan copied its registered fan design, but the Court refused interim relief after finding that the proper comparison had to be made with the registered design and not with later product models. The Court also found visible differences between the rival fans and held that Atomberg had not established goodwill in the particular get up of the suit fan for passing off.

Prescription Without Diagnosis: Court Remands Patent Refusal for Medical Research Engine

Patent refusal document stamped “Refused” with a magnifying glass on a wooden desk, representing legal review of a rejected patent application.

The Bombay High Court, in Navya Network Inc. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, set aside a patent refusal for a “Medical Research Retrieval Engine,” ruling that the Patent Office failed to apply the five-step inventive step test and introduced new Section 3(k) grounds in the refusal order that were never put to the applicant at the hearing stage.

All the Trappings! Bombay High Court Bars Second Patent Appeals

Illustration of closed courthouse gates symbolising the bar on second patent appeals in India under Section 100A CPC — Bombay High Court ruling on patent appeal maintainability

When the Bombay High Court dismissed a patent applicant’s appeal after a Single Judge upheld the Controller’s refusal, the applicant tried a second round before the Division Bench. The court’s answer, drawing on Section 100A CPC and the “trappings of a Civil Court” doctrine closes a significant procedural door for Indian patent litigants.

No Reasons, No Refusal – and No Absolute Bar Anymore: Bombay HC on Atomic Energy & Nuclear Patent Rejections

Radioactive hazard symbol on yellow and dark grey striped background, illustrating patent rejection atomic energy India

Must the government explain why it refuses a patent on atomic energy grounds? In Huntington Alloys Corporation v. Union of India, the Bombay High Court held that even an absolute statutory power demands a reasoned order – and the SHANTI Act 2025 has since rewritten the rules on nuclear patentability entirely.

Speak Up or Step Aside: Bombay HC on What a Post-Grant Opposition Order Must Do

Two hands pull a rope taut from opposite sides against a dark background, with a turmeric coated root tied at the center.

In Saurabh Arora v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Bombay High Court set aside a post-grant patent opposition order that dismissed a challenge under Section 25(2)(c) of the Patents Act without recording a single reason. The court found complete non-application of mind in an order affecting a Cadila Pharmaceuticals patent – but will it survive a fresh look?

“Will You Marry Me” Twice Not After a Copyright Assignment

In the case of Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. and others, a producer agreed to assign worldwide rights in the film Will You Marry Me in perpetuity. After that assignment, the producer entered into later arrangements for music rights and distribution rights with others. The assignee sued to protect the earlier assignment and stop further exploitation inconsistent with it.

Trademark Trouble Brewing: What ‘COX 5001’ Got Wrong About ‘HAYWARDS 5000′

A bottle of Haywards 5000 beer placed centrally on a rustic stone table, surrounded by ripe red tomatoes, herbs, and a metal pot, styled like a still-life painting with warm, earthy tones.

Bombay High Court grants AB Inbev a permanent injunction against Jagpin’s “COX 5001” mark, ruling it infringes the “HAYWARDS 5000” and “FIVE THOUSAND” trademarks.