Calcutta High Court | Intellepedia

Dunlop Trademark Dispute: Eight Opposed Registrations Set Aside by Calcutta High Court

Image showing Industrial factory setting with conveyor belts and workers handling tyres and materials, overlaid with the text 'Dunlop Trademark Dispute' and gavel icons, symbolising a legal dispute over trademark rights.

In a series of eight appeals concerning trademark oppositions filed by Dunlop International Limited against Glorious Investment Limited, the Calcutta High Court set aside orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks allowing Glorious Investment to register the mark “DUNLOP” in various classes. The Court held that the Registrar’s decisions were procedurally flawed, unreasoned, and passed in violation of natural justice.

ITC’s Nicotine Device Patent Rejection on Public Health Grounds Set Aside

Text reading "Intent, Not Harm, Defines Section 3(b)" displayed in bold white font on a dark smoky background

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the refusal of ITC’s patent application for a nicotine aerosol device. The Court found that the Controller’s reliance on morality grounds under Section 3(b) was improper and unsupported by cited documents, ensuring a fresh review of the patent.

Not Just a Mix: Court Finds Merit in UPL’s Fungicidal Formulation

A red "REJECTED" stamp is shown on the left side, while a hand on the right holds a green reverse card from the Uno game, symbolizing a reversal of decision. The background is a soft peach color.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the rejection of a patent application filed by UPL Ltd., involving innovative fungicidal combinations. The Court found that the rejection order issued by the Controller lacked detailed reasoning and had procedural deficiencies, particularly concerning inventive step and treatment of experimental data.

Patent Claim Amendments – Court’s observation of amendments to systems, methods and use claims

Illustration of a peaceful, smiling monk in orange robes sitting cross-legged with eyes closed, surrounded by a yellow halo, under the curved text "It’s all about accepting the change" on a peach background.

The Calcutta High Court remanded a patent application back to the Controller of Patents, citing infrimities in evaluating claim amendments. The Court stressed that mere change in claim types—method to system—without analyzing technical substance cannot justify rejection under Section 59 of the Indian Patents Act.

What Have You Been Smoking? Personal bias has no place in Tobacco patent evaluation

A cigarette crossed out with a red prohibition sign, flanked by comic-style text bubbles reading "WHAT?" on the left and "WHY!" on the right, against a blue background

The Calcutta High Court has criticised the arbitrary rejection of a tobacco syrup patent by the Indian patent office, urging objective analysis over personal bias. It held that Section 3(b) must not be misused to deny legitimate inventions without proper legal scrutiny and evidence.

Failure to consider Post-filing data violates natural Justice, reiterates Calcutta High Court

3D molecular structure with colored spheres representing atoms (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen) on the left, accompanied by bold black text on a light beige background that reads: 'Failure to Consider Post-Filing Data Violates Natural Justice'

The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that failure to consider post-filing data in patent applications breaches natural justice. In the Takeda case, it found the refusal of a patent for Brigatinib unjustified due to the Controller’s oversight of vital evidence and remanded the matter for reevaluation.

Failure to Disclose Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Procedural Fairness, Rules Calcutta High Court

"Dictionary entry highlighting the word 'disclose' with its definition to make information known or public."

Introduction The Calcutta High Court recently overturned the Controller’s decision to reject a patent application in the case of UCB Pharma GmbH & Anr. v....

When Delay Becomes Denial: Calcutta High Court Overturns Patent Rejection

The recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in BASF SE v. Joint Controller of Patents warrants attention for multiple reasons, particularly as it addresses...

Hybrid Cell Inventions: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act Does Not Apply

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld an appeal filed by BTS Research International Pty Ltd (“BTS”) challenging the rejection by the Assistant...

The sticky trademark fight between “FIGHTER” and “FITTER”

The Calcutta High Court has granted interim relief to Kamal Kumar Hirawat, restraining Maruti Poly Films from using the trademark “FITTER.” The Court held that the mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner’s registered trademark “FIGHTER,” used for adhesive tapes since 1995, and could cause consumer confusion, potentially harming the petitioner’s business.