Delhi High Court | Intellepedia

Mere Admixture or True Innovation? Crystal Crop’s Herbicidal Composition Fails the Synergy Test

A hand writing the word “SYNERGY” above the equation “1 + 1 > 2” in red marker, illustrating the concept that combined elements can produce a greater effect than their individual contributions.

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed a simple patent lesson: mixing known compounds will not do unless the mix delivers something unexpectedly better. In Crystal Crop, the claimed herbicidal composition failed that test.

Amendment of claims at Appellate Stage under section 59 of the Patents Act

Banner graphic displaying the text “Amendment of Claims at Appellate Stage” with a central icon representing a heat exchanger, on a blue and tan background.

In the case of Daikin Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Indian Patent Office refused Daikin’s patent application relating to a shell and plate heat exchanger on the ground of lack of novelty over a prior art document. During the appeal before the High Court, Daikin sought permission to amend claim 1 by incorporating additional limitations already disclosed in the specification. The court examined whether such an amendment could be permitted at the appellate stage under Section 59 of the Patents Act.

Can Anyone Own the “Forest”? Delhi High Court Applies Anti Dissection Rule in Forest Essentials case

Banner image of a dense forest with sunlight filtering through tall trees and a path running through it, featuring the text “Who owns the FOREST?” in a green label.

The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant an interim injunction in the dispute between Forest Essentials and Baby Forest Ayurveda. The court held that “BABY FOREST” was not deceptively similar to “FOREST ESSENTIALS,” and that the word **“FOREST,” being a dictionary word, could not be monopolised without strong evidence of secondary meaning. Applying the anti dissection rule, the court concluded that the marks must be assessed as a whole and declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s refusal of interim relief.

First Owner of Copyright in Film Music: Delhi HC in Saregama v Ilaiyaraja

Film reel and musical notes illustrating film music rights.

Section 17(b) and 17(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was applied by the Delhi High Court to treat the producer as the first owner of copyright in film works, absent an agreement to the contrary. Interim restraint was granted against unauthorised licensing of the works.

Mist in the Machine, Haze in the Reasoning: Court Reiterates Mandatory Five-Step Test for Inventive Step

A white air humidifier releasing mist in a green room with a blurred background, overlaid with the title “Mist in the Machine, Haze in the Reasoning” in bold text.

In the case of Energeo Works India Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Patent Office refused a patent application relating to an air cooling system that used a mist of water to pre cool ambient air entering an air cooled chiller assembly. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step in view of two prior art documents and common general knowledge. The applicant challenged the refusal on the ground that the order was unreasoned and that the Controller had not applied the correct legal test for obviousness.

Wanted Dead or Alive: Delhi High Court Holds Patent Revocation Survives Expiry and Section 107 Defence

Hand wearing a blue glove holding a small vial beside torn paper with the words “How to Survive,” symbolizing the Patent revocation case as decided by the Delhi High Court between Boehringer Ingelheim v. Controller

In the case of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents & Anr., the Delhi High Court addressed two important questions under the Patents Act: whether a revocation petition survives patent expiry, and whether it can continue after a Section 107 invalidity defence is raised in an infringement suit. The dispute arose from parallel revocation and infringement proceedings relating to Patent IN 243301 covering Linagliptin. The court held that revocation under Section 64 remains maintainable despite patent expiry and is not barred by a Section 107 defence.

OLIVE Trademark Case: Delhi High Court on Section 11 & Prior User Rights

Green-themed banner featuring an olive green T-shirt shown from the back on the left, a wooden board with green, black, and red olives and a small bottle of olive oil in the center, and an olive green T-shirt on the right printed with the phrase “OLIVE YOU” against a dark green background.

Delhi High Court refuses OLIVE trademark in Class 35, holding similarity with Class 25 marks and lack of proven prior user rights under Section 11.

A tipsy decision by the Trademark office? Court clarifies on geographical association of TAJPURIYA

A simple black and white illustration of two silhouetted figures standing together. One speech bubble says “SO?” while another larger bubble says “TAJPURIYA? That’s a tribe!” The image appears to represent a discussion or disagreement about whether the word TAJPURIYA refers to a tribal name.

In the case of M/S Ads Agro Industries Pvt Ltd vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, a liquor company applied to register the mark TAJPURIYA for alcoholic beverages. The Trade Marks Office first objected that the mark was geographical. However, in the final refusal order, it stated that TAJPURIYA was the name of an indigenous tribe associated with alcohol rituals. The High Court examined whether such a change in grounds was legally valid.

Trademark: ‘One For All’, Distinct For One? Delhi High Court Says Yes

In the case of Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, the appellant sought registration of the mark “ONE FOR ALL” for educational publications in Class 16. The Registrar refused registration under Section 9(1)(a) on the ground that the mark was common, laudatory, and lacked distinctiveness. The Single Judge upheld the refusal. The Division Bench examined whether the expression was inherently distinctive or merely descriptive in the context of books.

Should a pre-grant notice be issued before patent grant to facilitate filing of divisional applications? Court clarifies

Minimalist office interior with wooden shelves and books on a white wall, featuring a bold “Divide & Conquer” wall graphic under a hanging lamp above a wooden desk.

Delhi High Court clarifies that no pre-grant notice is required under Section 43 and divisional applications must be filed before patent grant.