Madras High Court | Intellepedia

Steering the divide: Steer Engineering’s divisional application denied by Court

A surreal scene of a car steering wheel standing upright in a narrow trench cut through a dry grassy field under a partly cloudy sky at sunset reflecting Steer Engineering’s failed patent appeal and the Court upholding the refusal of the divisional application.

Madras High Court upheld the refusal of Steer Engineering’s divisional patent application, affirming lack of inventive step and overlap with the parent filing.

No double riding! Court clarifies on patent revocation plea in case involving Philips

The image shows a Businessman balancing with one foot on each of two small wooden boats in open water, illustrating the attempt by one of the Parties in this case to seek patent revocation through multiple forums.

In the case of Versuni Holding B.V. Trading as Preethi v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, the patent holder had already sued for infringement before the Delhi High Court. The alleged infringer then filed a written statement there seeking invalidity and revocation of the patent, but also filed a separate revocation petition before the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court dismissed that separate revocation petition and accepted the objection to its maintainability.

Dead Company Dead Mark: Trademark cannot survive a Non Existent Owner or unrecorded trademark assignment

Gravestone in a green field engraved with “Here lies a trademark that died when the company died,” symbolizing a struck-off company and the legal issue of an unrecorded trademark assignment in trademark law.

In the case of Tibbs Food Private Limited vs D Lite Frankies and Foods Private Limited, the petitioner sought removal of a trademark registered for “D Lite Frankies and Foods Private Limited.” During the proceedings it came to light that the registered proprietor company had already been struck off, and the trademark had allegedly been assigned to an individual years earlier. The court had to decide whether the registration could continue in the name of a non existent company and what effect the unrecorded assignment would have.

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.