IP Law | Intellepedia

Saint-Gobain Patent Rejection: Delhi HC Finds No Inventive Step in Glass Coating Claim

Illustration of a judge holding a gavel beside broken glass shards, with the text "Delhi High Court Rejects Saint-Gobain's Patent Application on Glass Coatings Due to Lack of Inventive Step" on a pastel gradient background.

Delhi HC upholds Saint-Gobain patent rejection, ruling that the glass coating claim lacked inventive step and failed to show technical advancement.

Non-Disclosure of Prior Art in Hearing Notice Violates Natural Justice, Rules Delhi High Court

3D illustration of repeating blue molecular structures representing chemical compounds, symbolizing scientific formulations or agrochemical compositions.

In Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court emphasized procedural fairness and ruled that the non-disclosure of prior art in a hearing notice constitutes a breach of natural justice. The Court remanded the case for fresh evaluation.

Pharmacyclics Divisional Patent Application Upheld by Calcutta High Court

3D molecular structures illustrating chemical bonding and a detailed fluorinated organic compound model with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and fluorine atoms

Calcutta High Court upholds Pharmacyclics divisional patent application for ibrutinib-anti-CD20 therapy, interpreting Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.

Delhi High Court Remands Trademark Applications for Re-Examination

A warning sign with a yellow background and black border displaying the text "WARNING: PROCEDURE LAPSES AHEAD" under a triangular caution symbol, indicating potential procedural errors or issues.

In the case of M/s Kamdhenu Limited v. Union of India & Ors., the Delhi High Court exercised suo moto jurisdiction under Article 226 to address procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in accepting trademark applications. The Court found omissions in the Search Reports and noted the lack of application of mind by the Registry, prompting remand of the applications for fresh examination.

Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearings

In the case of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Delhi High Court set aside a refusal of a Class 16 application. In simple terms, the Court said that an order passed without an effective hearing, and without dealing with the documents on file, cannot stand.

No Injunction After Patent Expiry, Holds Delhi High Court

An elderly woman in traditional clothing operates a spinning wheel in a dimly lit room. The word "EXPIRED" is prominently overlaid across the image in bold white letters.

In the case of Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v. LMW Limited, the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction after the expiry of the patent in suit. The Court held that patent rights lapse with expiry and cannot be enforced thereafter.

Delay in Copyright Lawsuit Costs Plaintiff Urgent Relief and Mediation Exemption

A beige background with a black rectangular stamp reading "URGENTLY REQUIRED" in bold letters. The text is overlaid with a large red "X" inside a red circle, symbolizing cancellation or denial of urgency.

In the case of Inreco Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Nav Records Pvt. Ltd., the Calcutta High Court held that a copyright suit filed without genuine urgency could not bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The Court revoked the exemption and dismissed the suit.

“DREAM FREEDOM” Trademark removed from register for Deceptive Similarity

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. in a trademark rectification petition, directing the removal of the “DREAM FREEDOM” mark from the Register of Trade Marks. The court found that the respondent had deceptively adopted the mark and trade dress of Gemini’s “FREEDOM” brand, leading to potential consumer confusion. The ruling reinforced the principles of prior use and deceptive similarity in trademark law.

Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

The Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal in Signal Pharmaceuticals vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, citing a lack of reasoning in the rejection order. The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to address the applicant’s arguments, disregarded amended claims, and provided no justification for the refusal under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration, reinforcing the necessity of well-reasoned patent orders.

Trademark Licensing vs. Assignment: Madras HC on ROYALCHEF Dispute

The Madras High Court ruled that the licensing of the ROYALCHEF trademark does not restrict the licensor’s rights. In a dispute between Quality Chef Agro Foods and ADF Trading, the Court analyzed trademark ownership, assignment, and licensing agreements. It concluded that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no exclusive right to the mark and could not prevent the licensor from exporting goods under the same brand.