Delhi High Court | Intellepedia

No more ‘Social’izing for Social chai

The Delhi High Court has restrained Social Chai from using the “SOCIAL” mark, finding trademark infringement and a likelihood of consumer confusion. The dispute highlights the importance of trademark protection in the restaurant industry.

Well-known mark not a pre-requisite for grant of relief against infringement

This post discusses a Delhi High Court decision on trademark infringement involving the mark “PEBBLE” used by V Guard and Crompton. The Court held that a well-known mark is not necessary for relief under Section 29(4) if reputation in India is proven.

SEP, Infringment and principles relating to actual costs – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 5

This post discusses the Delhi High Court’s approach to awarding actual costs in the Ericsson v Lava standard essential patent litigation. It outlines the legal principles applied and analyses the Court’s reasoning, focusing on party conduct and litigation strategy in determining cost awards.

Standard Essential Patents, Claim charts and Infringement – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 4

This post discusses how the Delhi High Court assessed infringement of standard essential patents in Ericsson v. Lava, evaluating claim charts and the two-step infringement test. The court’s structured approach clarifies key aspects of SEP litigation in India.

Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.

The Delhi High Court encouraged settlement in a dispute between PPL and Neb Sports over alleged unlicensed public performance of sound recordings at sporting events. The case highlights the importance of copyright compliance for event organisers in India.

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

The Delhi High Court dismissed Google’s appeal against the rejection of its patent application, finding no inventive step over prior art. A fine of Rs.1 lakh was also imposed on Google for incorrect disclosure regarding its European patent application.

Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed CEAT’s appeal against the refusal of its FARMAX trademark, citing substantial delay and likelihood of confusion with prior marks. The court found the marks similar and the goods closely related, upholding the Registrar’s refusal.

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

The Delhi High Court addressed trademark infringement claims over the use of ‘Smith’ for identical water purification products. The decision highlights the assessment of dominant trademark elements and the likelihood of confusion among Indian consumers.

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ericsson vs. Lava clarifies major legal standards for standard essential patents, FRAND royalties, and infringement in India. This case note examines the Court’s findings on patent validity, damages, and licensing practices in the telecom sector.

Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the FIELDMARSHAL trademark belongs to PM Diesel, recognising its prior, continuous, and legitimate use. Thukral’s claims were dismissed, and reliefs including actual litigation costs and registration of pending applications were granted to PM Diesel.