Madras High Court | Intellepedia

Dhanush v. Nayanthara: Netflix denied an exit pass in copyright violation case

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Wunderbar Films in its copyright dispute with Netflix over the unauthorized use of behind-the-scenes footage. Netflix’s applications challenging jurisdiction and seeking rejection of the plaint were dismissed. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction was valid, pre-suit mediation was not mandatory due to urgency, and combining statutory and common law remedies was permissible.

Evaluation of Technical Advancement and Compliance with CRI Guidelines under Indian Patent Law

The Madras High Court allowed Idemia Identity & Security France’s appeal, setting aside a refusal order under Section 3(k) for a cryptography patent. The Court ruled the order as a non-speaking one and in violation of natural justice. It directed fresh consideration of the matter, emphasizing technical contributions and adherence to CRI and European guidelines.

Madras HC Overrules Procedural Rejection in France Telecom’s Patent Case

The Madras High Court allowed France Telecom’s writ petition, overturning orders rejecting its patent application due to procedural delays. The Court emphasized that errors by agents should not deprive applicants of statutory rights, directing the Deputy Controller of Patents to process the application as per the Patents Act, 1970.

Monster Energy falls short of “Energy for the ‘Trademark’ Journey”

The Madras High Court dismissed Monster Energy’s appeal against the refusal to register “Energy for the Journey” as a trademark, citing lack of distinctiveness. The Court upheld that generic or descriptive marks cannot be monopolized without evidence of secondary significance, allowing the appellant to reapply upon establishing distinctiveness through prolonged use.

Madras High Court Overturns Patent Refusal under section 3(d), Reiterates Importance of Reasoned Orders and Natural Justice

The Madras High Court overturned the Controller’s refusal of Intervet International’s patent application, underscoring the importance of natural justice and reasoned orders in patent proceedings. The case involved complex issues under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, with the Court remanding the matter for reconsideration.

Madras High Court Upholds Patent Validity in Embio Limited vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

The Madras High Court dismissed Embio Ltd.’s petition challenging the validity of Malladi Drugs’ patent for a method of preparing chiral beta-amino alcohols. The court upheld the patent’s novelty, inventive step, and validity, citing superior yields and optical purity.

Refusal of FACT Trademark for Air/Water Purification Products Set Aside

The Madras High Court reversed the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision to refuse KX Technologies LLC’s application for the FACT trademark for air and water purification filters. The court found no likelihood of confusion with existing marks in the fertilizer sector, allowing the application to proceed with a disclaimer on its specific use.

CIT Trademark: Coimbatore Institute of Technology Prevails over Chennai Institute of Technology

The Madras High Court granted Coimbatore Institute of Technology exclusive rights over the “CIT” trademark, ruling against Chennai Institute of Technology’s concurrent use. The court determined that Chennai Institute’s use of “CIT” was misleading, lacking distinctiveness, and obtained through suppression of facts. The respondent’s mark was ordered to be removed from the trademark register.

SCRUM Alliance’s Rectification Petition relating to ‘CSM’ Mark Dismissed based on Honest/Concurrent Use

In Scrum Alliance Inc. v. Prem Kumar S., the Madras High Court dismissed Scrum Alliance’s petition to revoke the “CSM” trademark registered by Prem Kumar. The Court held that Scrum Alliance had not substantiated prior use of the mark in India and affirmed Prem Kumar’s ri

Methods for Antibody Production in Genetically Modified Animals are Patentable; they are not covered under Section 3(i) Exclusion

The Madras High Court has overturned the rejection of Kymab Limited’s patent application related to generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The Court found that the invention does not fall under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it is not a method for treating animals but a process for producing antibodies using genetically modified animals. The patent is now set to be granted.