Bombay High Court | Intellepedia

Knowledge Theft : Property includes Intellectual Property, affirms Supreme court

The Supreme Court of India upheld the Bombay High Court’s interpretation that intellectual property, including research data, qualifies as ‘property’ under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This decision enables victims of caste-based atrocities to claim compensation for loss of intellectual assets. The ruling affirms the protection of knowledge-based assets and expands the legal definition of property under the Act.

Ensure Diabetes Care’s Advertisement Disparages Horlicks Diabetes Plus, says the Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has restrained the circulation of Ensure Diabetes Care’s advertisement for disparaging Horlicks Diabetes Plus. The ruling addresses the limits of comparative advertising and highlights key principles concerning disparagement and intellectual property rights in India.

Court Directs Meta to Take Down Deepfake Videos of NSE CEO in Urgent Ruling

The Bombay High Court directed Meta and other intermediaries to promptly take down deepfake videos of the NSE CEO, citing obligations under IT Rules 2021. The court’s ruling highlights intermediary liability and the need to protect investors from misleading content.

“Be mindful when exercising quasi judicial power, cryptic orders unacceptable” says Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court ruled that cryptic and uncommunicated orders by the Registrar of Trade Marks violate procedural fairness. The court mandated a fresh review of the trademark application, reinforcing the importance of reasoned decisions in quasi judicial processes.

Full and Transparent Disclosure of Material Facts for Ex-parte Injunctions

The Bombay High Court vacated an ex-parte injunction in a trademark dispute due to Atyati’s suppression of material facts regarding Cognizant’s prior logo use. This decision reiterates the necessity for full and transparent disclosure in ex-parte proceedings.

Novartis says No to Novarish

The Bombay High Court granted Novartis an injunction against Novarish Healthcare for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found the marks deceptively similar and protected Novartis’s established rights under Indian IP law.

Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

On June 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court granted Glenmark an interim injunction against Gleck Pharma in a trademark dispute over “ZITA-MET” and “XIGAMET”. The court found that the similarities between the trademarks could confuse consumers, leading to potential health risks, and applied strict standards to prevent such confusion.

Pidilite Contains Astral from infringing its Container Design

On June 13, 2024, the High Court of Bombay granted Pidilite Industries Limited an interim injunction against Astral Limited, protecting its registered container design. The Court found Astral’s design to be deceptively similar and upheld the novelty and distinctiveness of Pidilite’s design.

Prosecution History Estoppel applies to trademark cases, confirms the Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the “prosecution history estoppel” principle applies to trademark cases. This means that statements made during the trademark registration process about similarities with other trademarks can be used against the applicant in future infringement lawsuits. The Court also emphasized the importance of disclosing all relevant information, including prosecution history, in trademark lawsuits.

Insightful Analysis of Recent Indian Trademark Court Decisions – Part 7

Explore Part 7 of our series on Trademarks in the Courtroom, featuring key decisions from Indian courts. Delve into the Bombay and Delhi High Courts’ rulings on ‘I am,’ ‘Smart Cities India,’ and ‘Just Milk’ trademarks, offering valuable insights into India’s evolving trademark jurisprudence.