Madras High Court | Intellepedia

‘Controller under an obligation to inform inventor’ says Madras High Court

This post examines two crucial orders from the Madras High Court regarding patent refusals, highlighting the necessity for Controllers to provide detailed and well-reasoned orders. The cases of Nihon Onkyo Engineering Co. Ltd. and Qualcomm Incorporated demonstrate the importance of clarity in refusal decisions to facilitate judicial review and ensure transparency.

MRF’s Trademark Muscle Secures Victory in Dispute Against Powermax

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of MRF Limited in a trademark and copyright infringement case against Powermax Rubber Factory and Powermax Tyre, granting a permanent injunction and awarding nominal damages. The court found Powermax’s use of similar logos likely to cause consumer confusion and mislead the public.

Court Lifts injunction on Tractor-Forklift Design

The Madras High Court deliberated on whether a tractor fitted with a forklift can be considered a new vehicle and thus be eligible for design registration. The Court’s analysis focused on the novelty and innovation of the design, ultimately determining that such a combination was not new or original, leading to the vacation of an earlier injunction.

Victory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s Refusal

The Madras High Court, in a decision dated March 19, 2024, set aside a patent refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in the case of a patent application filed by Novozymes A/S. This post summarizes the decision of the court in this case.

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Madras High Court overturned the Indian Patent Office’s decision to reject Imclone’s patent application for a monoclonal antibody to treat metastatic bone cancer. The Court disagreed with the Patent Office’s view that the antibody was merely “discovered in nature” and not an invention.

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

The Madras High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that rejected Microsoft’s patent application for “Message Communication of Sensor and other Data.” The Court clarified that the “person skilled in the art” (PSITA) used to assess the inventive step is not omniscient and cannot be presumed to possess the inventive solution claimed in the patent.

Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

Kalyan Jewellers successfully defended its trademarks ‘Kalyan’ and ‘Kalyan Jewellers’ against cybersquatting through a recent Madras High Court ruling. The Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name “kalyanjewellers.com” to Kalyan Jewellers after the WIPO arbitration panel couldn’t decide on the case due to the requirement of proving bad faith.

Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?

This blog post discusses a recent court case in India concerning the validity of raising a trademark invalidity plea against an interim application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. The court ruled that a plea of invalidity can be raised not only in the written statement but also in other pleadings and submissions, including counter-affidavits to interim applications.

Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark

In this case, the Madras High Court highlights the importance of addressing similarity concerns and pursuing registration as a label mark for stronger protection. This case with help gain insights for navigating trademark challenges in India.

Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

Learn how a system for concealing user addresses in online transactions was deemed patentable, distinguishing it from excluded “business methods.” Gain insights for navigating patent applications in the digital age.