Delhi High Court | Intellepedia

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates examine Kashmir’s GI applications, Delhi High Court’s stance on pharmaceutical trademarks, and actions against trademark infringement. The bulletin presents objective legal analysis of recent Indian trademark cases.

Weekly Update: Copyright and Entertainment Law

This bulletin discusses key copyright and entertainment law updates, including Paramount’s lawsuit over a pop-up restaurant, the Delhi High Court’s copyright ruling, and Epic Games’ recent legal win. Presented by BananaIP Counsels, the update offers objective analysis of these significant legal events.

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates cover major legal developments such as Domino’s win in the Delhi High Court, Apple and Usain Bolt’s trademark filings, and Vistara’s infringement case. The bulletin also reports on new domain registration rules in Australia and the India GI Fair.

CASE BRIEF : Havells India Limited. vs. Shanghai CET Electric Co. Ltd. & Ors.

The Delhi High Court addressed whether invisible use of Havells’ trademark in meta tags by Shanghai CET Electric amounted to contempt and infringement. The Court clarified the defendants’ obligations regarding removal of infringing listings and the interpretation of interim injunctions under trademark law.

CASE BRIEF : Havells India Limited. vs. Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Havells India against Panasonic, restraining the use of allegedly infringing fan designs. The case discusses key legal principles surrounding design infringement and passing off in the Indian context.

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court set aside a Patent Office order rejecting Gogoro Inc’s application for lack of inventive step, citing inadequate reasoning. The case was remanded for proper analysis under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.

CASE BRIEF : Osram GmbH & Anr. Vs. Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.

This post presents a detailed case brief of the Osram trademark infringement matter decided by the Delhi High Court. It highlights the legal reasoning behind granting a permanent injunction and the protection of well-known trademarks in India.

CASE BRIEF : Parvesh Kamboj & Ors. vs The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court addressed whether trademark oppositions could be filed beyond the statutory period due to the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 extension of limitation. The Court found the authorities’ actions arbitrary, allowed late oppositions, and suspended registrations pending opposition resolution.

CASE BRIEF : Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.

This case brief discusses the Delhi High Court’s analysis of the procedural aspects involved in the re-registration of copyright societies. The judgment underscores the significance of natural justice and fair hearing in decisions affecting intellectual property rights.

Divisional Applications cannot exceed scope of Parent Application: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has clarified that divisional applications under the Patents Act must not exceed the scope of the parent application and require plurality of inventions in the original claims. This decision reinforces the primacy of claims in determining the scope of patent protection.