In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision to refuse CEAT Limited’s trademark application for “FARMAX.” Citing significant delay and potential confusion with existing marks, the Court dismissed the appeal. The decision underscores the importance of timely action and highlights the necessity for distinctiveness in trademark applications. Learn more about the case: Ceat Limited vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks.
Read more about Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appealTag: Condonation of delay
CASE BRIEF : Parvesh Kamboj & Ors. vs The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Facts The Delhi High Court (the Court) merged four Writ petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners had been restricted...
Read more about CASE BRIEF : Parvesh Kamboj & Ors. vs The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade MarksCan a delay in filing a PCT National Phase application in India be condoned? An interesting case on Rule 138 of The Patent Rules, 2003 (Amendment 2016)
This post discusses a Delhi High Court decision on whether the delay in filing a PCT national phase patent application in India can be condoned under Rule 138. The analysis centres on the judicial interpretation of the Controller’s powers and the consequences of non-compliance by subordinate authorities.
Read more about Can a delay in filing a PCT National Phase application in India be condoned? An interesting case on Rule 138 of The Patent Rules, 2003 (Amendment 2016)