Madras High Court | Intellepedia

Trademark Fit Check: MISS MANGO Wears It Right, MANGO Can’t Block It

In the case of Mohamed Yusuf vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks, the appellant sought registration for a clothing brand using the device mark ‘MISS MANGO’. The Registrar rejected the application citing similarity to the word mark ‘MANGO’. The High Court found the refusal unsustainable, ruling that the marks were not confusingly similar and the generic nature of the word ‘MANGO’ raised questions about its own registrability.

Trademark Application Abandonment: Madras HC Ruling on STIMULAID

Assorted edible seeds and grains arranged in neat sections

An appeal against trademark application abandonment for STIMULAID was decided by the Madras High Court. The Registrar’s order was set aside after compliance with the examination report and Form TM M filing was recorded.

Is a Smarter Scooter Frame Patentable? Court Orders Rethink on Inventive Step

In the case of TVS Motor Company vs Patent Office, a scooter maker’s patent claim for a simple yet novel frame design was rejected for lacking inventive step. The court disagreed with the reasoning and ordered the Patent Office to re-examine the application using a proper test.

Copied Tractor Parts, Not the Drawings? That’s Not Infringement

Can you infringe copyright without ever seeing the original work? In a case about tractor parts and engineering drawings, the Madras High Court answered no. It ruled that producing similar tractor components without accessing or copying the original technical drawings does not violate copyright—even if the final parts match in size or shape.

Music Copyright Dispute Over Sagara Sangamam, and Shankarabharanam: Infringement Remedy Survives Even if Declaration Is Time-Barred

The Madras High Court looked at a copyright ownership dispute over the music of Salangai Oli, Sagara Sangamam, and Shankarabharanam, where both parties claimed rights through assignments from the original producers. The court held that while the claim for a declaration of ownership was time-barred, the plaintiff could still pursue the case for infringement and ask for a permanent injunction to prevent infringement of asserted rights.

Once the Hearing Is Fixed, the Door Closes on New Evidence in Patent Oppositions

In the case of M/s Hi Tech Chemicals Limited vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., the Madras High Court examined whether documents labeled as additional evidence could be admitted after the hearing was fixed in a post-grant patent opposition. The Court looked at the patent rules, and held that private documents do not qualify as “publications” under Rule 62(4), and are therefore not admissible after the hearing date was fixed.

The Bounce Trademark Dispute: Generic Marks in Salon Services

Salon mirror reflection with hair styling tools and lights.

The Bounce trademark dispute highlights the complexities of enforcing rights over generic marks in the salon industry. The Madras High Court’s interim order underscores the importance of trial evidence in determining exclusivity and infringement in descriptive trademark cases.

Madras HC Awards ₹20 Lakhs Compensation in Amma Memorial Digital Project Dispute

In the background a museum with lighting visuals the overlay text reads, 'Amma memorial digital project dispute: The Case of Praveen Raj Jayachandran v. Fusion VR'

The Madras High Court resolved the Amma Memorial Digital Project dispute by awarding reasonable compensation for partial software development and concept creation. The judgement clarified copyright ownership, absence of profit-sharing rights, and the basis for determining damages in software-related project collaborations.

Can Claims Presumptively Inherit the Priority Date of a Provisional Application?

Close-up of a person circling a date on a calendar, symbolizing checking timelines

In Rallis India Limited v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Others, the Madras High Court refused to assume that claims automatically inherit the priority date of a provisional, especially where the crucial EC formulation emerges only in the complete specification. The decision pushes the Patent Office to treat priority and prior art questions as matters for analysis, not default settings.

Can You Copyright a Product Photo When Design Is Registered? Madras HC Clarifies

A wooden desk with engineering blueprints and technical drawings spread out. Two printed photographs of a pump assembly lie on the blueprints.

The Madras High Court has clarified that a product photograph can be copyrighted even if the product’s design is registered. The Court held that Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act does not bar copyright in a photograph of a registered design, as the two are distinct forms of intellectual property.