Madras High Court | Intellepedia

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

The Madras High Court set aside the refusal of United Foods’ word mark YOYO, allowing amendment to a label mark under Section 91. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, reflecting a practical judicial approach in trademark appeals.

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

The Madras High Court held that a system for selectively concealing physical addresses in e-commerce is not a business method under Section 3k. The decision clarifies the distinction between technological inventions and business method exclusions in Indian patent law.

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

The Madras High Court has overturned the Controller of Patents’ refusal of a soluble foaming composition patent, highlighting procedural lapses in considering applicant submissions. The matter will now be reconsidered by another patent officer within four months.

Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different.

The Madras High Court clarified the distinction between assignment and declaration dates for proof of right under Section 7(2) of the Patents Act. This ruling guides applicants and controllers on procedural objections in Indian patent applications.

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside several patent refusal orders, highlighting the need for proper reasoning and adherence to legal procedures. These judgments clarify essential aspects of patentability assessment and reinforce procedural fairness in Indian patent law.

Chand-z Vs. Chand-A For Lungis: Chand-A trademark is not infringing as the use is honest and concurrent, says the Madras High Court.

The Madras High Court ruled that the Chand-A trademark for lungis is not infringing due to honest and concurrent use. The decision clarifies key principles for establishing such use in trademark disputes.

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside a patent refusal for an image construction apparatus, citing insufficient reasoning under Section 3(k) and inventive step. The Court remanded the matter for reconsideration, highlighting the importance of well-reasoned decisions in patent law.

Reversal of unreasoned and invalid Patent refusals based on Section 3(d), Novelty, and Inventive Step

This post reviews three High Court decisions reversing unreasoned patent refusals in India, focusing on Section 3(d), novelty, and inventive step. The courts stressed the need for considering applicant submissions and proper reasoning in refusal orders.

Premier Vs. Barclays Premier League, Apollo Mark Well-Known Status?, and Roobini Vs. Rubam Trademark Cases

This post examines recent trademark cases from Indian courts, discussing composite mark analysis, well-known mark recognition, and the standard for confusion. Key judgments on Barclays Premier League, Apollo, and Roobini vs. Rubam offer practical guidance for trademark strategy and compliance.

Madras High Court Rulings on Patent Application Refusals

Recent Madras High Court rulings have clarified the standards for refusing patent applications in India. The Court emphasized the need for clear, detailed reasoning in refusals, ensuring transparency and fairness in the patent examination process.