Delhi High Court | Intellepedia

In Vitro Screening in Form, Diagnostic in Substance: Telomerase Therapy Patent Barred under Section 3(i)

Banner image with a yellow geometric background, a light bulb illustration in the centre, and bold black text reading: In Vitro Screening in Form, Diagnostic in Substance: Patent Refused under Section 3(i).

Labeling a test as ‘screening’ doesn’t make it patentable if it decides treatment. In Geron Corporation’s case, measuring telomere length to decide who receives telomerase therapy made the method a diagnostic process, blocking its patent.

Employment First, IPL Later, Copyright Nowhere

Copyright Authorship and Moral Rights Dispute

In the case of Gaurav Garg v. Aly Morani & Ors., the dispute arose from claims over the IPL Awards event, its presentation, and related written material. The plaintiff said that he had developed the event, reduced it into writing, and was entitled to authorship credit, moral rights, and commercial benefits, but the court rejected those claims after examining the employment relationship, Section 17(c), Section 57, the nature of the material, and the MOU.

Two Piscos, One Bar: Delhi High Court Division Bench Confirms Dual GI Identity for Peru and Chile

Two bottles and two glasses of Pisco labeled "Peruvian Pisco" and "Chilean Pisco" are displayed on a table set against a scenic vineyard backdrop at sunset, symbolizing the geographical indication dispute between Peru and Chile.

What began as a routine GI application in 2005 ended twenty years later with Delhi High Court’s Division Bench settling one of Indian IP law’s most contested geographical indication disputes. Can Peru hold “PISCO” exclusively – or must two countries share a five-letter word?

KENT can’t do it! Court proves it’s not a big FAN of Kent’s Brand Stretch, backs prior use

In the case of Kent Ro Systems Limited v. Kent Cables Private Limited, two businesses using the same mark KENT clashed over who could sell fans under that mark. One side relied on its strong reputation in water purifiers and home appliances. The other relied on earlier adoption of KENT for electrical goods and evidence of fan sales over several years. The Division Bench upheld the interim restraint against Kent RO and left the final rights to be decided at trial.

No double riding! Court clarifies on patent revocation plea in case involving Philips

The image shows a Businessman balancing with one foot on each of two small wooden boats in open water, illustrating the attempt by one of the Parties in this case to seek patent revocation through multiple forums.

In the case of Versuni Holding B.V. Trading as Preethi v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, the patent holder had already sued for infringement before the Delhi High Court. The alleged infringer then filed a written statement there seeking invalidity and revocation of the patent, but also filed a separate revocation petition before the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court dismissed that separate revocation petition and accepted the objection to its maintainability.

Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki: When MOTION met TRANSFORMOTION, Similarity missed the bus!

Promotional graphic for Volkswagen vs Maruti Suzuki featuring a red-and-blue transforming robot on the left and the words “AUTOBOTS! TRANSFORM...” in bold white and orange text on a muted grey background.

In the case of Volkswagen AG v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr., Volkswagen opposed Maruti Suzuki’s application for TRANSFORMOTION in Class 12 on the ground that it was too close to Volkswagen’s earlier mark 4MOTION. The court examined the marks in the setting in which they were used, noted that one was tied to a vehicle technology and the other to an advertising campaign, and concluded that the two marks did not create deceptive similarity.

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.