IP Law India | Intellepedia

Sweet victory and Sweeter rewards – court declares NUTELLA well-known Trademark

Delhi HC grants Ferrero ₹30 lakh in damages, declaring ‘NUTELLA’ a well-known trademark in a major counterfeit case against M.B. Enterprises.

ORSL vs ERSI: Delhi Court’s Juicy ruling in Johnson & Johnson ORSL Trademark Infringement Case

Delhi HC awards Rs. 1.21 cr to J&J in the ORSL trademark case against ERSI & ElectroORS for deceptive similarity and injunction violations.

Who Bears the Patent Credibility Challenge Burden?

A photo featuring Auguste Rodin's sculpture The Thinker positioned outdoors against a backdrop of green trees and blue sky. On the left side, there is a dense leafy tree, while on the right, a classical stone building with columns is partially visible.

Mold Tek filed a case for infringement of its patents relating to tamper-proof plastic lids, and secured an interim injunction. The Commercial Court vacated the injunction, placing the burden of establishing validity on the patentee. The Delhi High Court reversed this, clarifying that it is the defendant’s burden to raise a credible invalidity defence under Section 107.

Patent Application for System to Locate Users on P2P Networks Refused under Section 3(k)

Wooden cylinders with letters "P2P" symbolizing peer-to-peer networks, placed on a background of dollar bills. Wooden cylinders with letters "P2P" symbolizing peer-to-peer networks, placed on a background of dollar bills.

The Delhi High Court has upheld the refusal of a patent application for a system that locates users on peer-to-peer networks. The Court ruled that the invention was a computer program per se, excluded from patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.

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.

Non Use of Trademark Leads to Cancellation: Delhi High Court favors Zepto

Non-Use of Trademark Leads to Cancellation: Delhi HC Favors Zepto

The Delhi High Court, in an ex-parte decision, ordered the removal of the ‘ZEPTO’ trademark registered by Mohammad Arshad in Class 35, upholding Kiranakart’s claim of non-use. The judgment affirms that trademarks must be actively used to retain validity under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act.

“Be mindful when exercising quasi judicial power, cryptic orders unacceptable” says Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court ruled that cryptic and uncommunicated orders by the Registrar of Trade Marks violate procedural fairness. The court mandated a fresh review of the trademark application, reinforcing the importance of reasoned decisions in quasi judicial processes.

Indian IP Office Orders Re-evaluation of Trademark Applications

The Indian IP Office has initiated a re-evaluation of trademark applications handled by QCI-appointed officers. This two-tier review seeks legal compliance and swift resolution, with designated officers and IT support ensuring accountability and efficiency.

All set for VOMISET : Court restores trademark and allows renewal beyond deadline

The Bombay High Court restored Indi Pharma’s VOMISET trademark, permitting late renewal due to non-receipt of statutory notice. The order clarifies rights under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and mandates timely Registrar action on such applications.

Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits

The Delhi High Court has restrained the use of the TOWER trademark on dry fruits, finding a risk of consumer confusion and breach of a prior undertaking. The order clarifies trademark enforcement boundaries and highlights the importance of respecting agreed limitations in Indian IP disputes.