Delhi High Court | Intellepedia

Coca-Cola Patent Appeal: Delhi HC Emphasizes Need for Reasoned Inventive Step Analysis

A row of classic Coca-Cola glass bottles with red labels and caps, placed against a bright yellow background.

Delhi HC overturned Coca-Cola’s patent refusal, stressing the need for detailed inventive step analysis in patent decisions.

Ziegler-Natta Catalyst Patent Rejection Upheld for Lack of Inventive Step

Illustration of a judge at a courtroom bench holding a gavel, smiling and giving a thumbs down, with a speech bubble saying “This is ‘Natta’ Catalyst” – a pun referring to the rejection of a Ziegler-Natta catalyst patent.

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of Lummus Novolen’s patent for a Ziegler-Natta catalyst, citing lack of inventive step and similarity to prior art. Read the key observations and legal reasoning.

Horizontal to Vertical inversion of letters not a ‘substantial amendment’ of trademark

Delhi High Court sets aside Registrar’s cancellation of a trademark, ruling that vertical inversion of letters is not a substantial amendment under trademark law.

Patent Upheld, Design Dismissed: Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation – Part 1: Infringement & Relief

Illustration showing two people in discussion on the left and a justice scale on the right, with the text in between: “Dura-Line to Jain Irrigation: We Patented It. You Replicated It.” on a light green background.

This post analyzes the Delhi High Court’s decision in Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation, where the Court found patent infringement but rejected the design infringement claim.

Epifi Outspeeds F1 Trademark in Court – No Use, No Rights!

Two cars racing side-by-side toward a checkered finish line with a waving finish flag; one car with FI MONEY written on it leads as it speed past the car with F1 on it.

The Delhi High Court cancelled the F1 trademark held by Formula One in Class 36 for non-use in India, following Epifi’s rectification petition. The decision reaffirms that trademark rights require genuine and ongoing use.

‘Parliament’ Isn’t Just for Politicians

Illustration of the Indian Parliament building with the national flag atop, captured during golden hour. A 'TRADEMARK' stamp is superimposed on the right side of the image, symbolising legal or intellectual property context.

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the use of “Parliament” as a trademark does not violate the Emblems and Names Act if used as a common noun. This ruling enables businesses to use such terms in branding, as long as they don’t imply a direct association with governmental institutions.

All May Use “One for All” — But None May Own It

A digitally illustrated banner features the Three Musketeers in the center, wearing blue tunics with white crosses, brown gloves, and wide-brimmed hats, each holding a rapier. On the left side of the image, the phrase “ONE FOR ALL” appears in a playful white font, while “ALL FOR ONE” is displayed in matching style on the right. The background is a dark muted green, creating contrast that highlights both the figures and the text

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited (“Oswaal Books”) challenging the refusal of their trademark application for the phrase “ONE FOR ALL.” The Court upheld the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision, and came to the conclusion that the applied mark was devoid of any inherent or acquired distinctiveness.

Under Armour Vs. Aero Armour: Initial Interest Confusion and Trademark Infringement

Logos of Under Armour and Aero Armour beside colorful T-shirts on hangers.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Under Armour Inc. against Indian apparel entity Anish Agarwal & Anr., restraining the use of the trademarks ‘AERO ARMOUR’ and ‘ARMR’ during the pendency of the suit. The Court found that the respondents’ marks bore deceptive similarity to Under Armour’s registered word mark ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, and that their adoption for similar goods was prima facie infringing and not bona fide. The Court came to its conclusion of trademark infringement based on initial interest confusion among consumers, and by applying the dominant part rule.

Can a Pre-Grant Opposition Survive After Patent Grant?

Text graphic with the phrase “Almost There!” in playful, rounded white font outlined in red, centered on a dark blue background.

The Delhi High Court confirmed that once a patent grant order is signed, a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) is no longer valid. This case involving Vertex Pharmaceuticals affirms that the signature date is definitive, regardless of later administrative delays.

Interim Relief to FDC in KROMALITE Trademark Dispute

Image showing Confused shopper choosing between similar brands online with text KROMALITE OR CHROMALITE??? above a shopping cart and laptop, highlighting trademark confusion.

In a significant trademark ruling, the Delhi High Court sided with FDC Limited, granting interim injunction against Palsons Derma for using “CHROMALITE”, a mark found deceptively similar to FDC’s “KROMALITE”. The decision underscores brand integrity and affirms legal safeguards against consumer confusion in pharmaceutical and cosmetic sectors.