23 articles
Delhi High Court clarifies that no pre-grant notice is required under Section 43 and divisional applications must be filed before patent grant.
Calcutta HC rules notarized foreign documents valid without apostille in Marriott trademark opposition, reinforcing fair procedure and natural justice.
In the case of Stromag GmbH vs. Controller General of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that patent refusal orders must contain detailed reasoning. A single-line dismissal, the…
In Croda Inc. v. Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court emphasized procedural fairness and ruled that the non-disclosure of prior art in a hearing notice constitutes a…
In the case of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Delhi High Court set aside a refusal of a Class 16 application. In…
In the case of Treibacher Industrie AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of a patent application for a catalytic oxidation…
The Madras High Court set aside a patent refusal under section 3d, citing lack of procedural fairness and insufficient reasoning. The Court directed reconsideration, underscoring the necessity of…
The Calcutta High Court set aside a post grant opposition decision in a patent dispute for inadequate reasoning and lack of independent analysis. The matter has been remanded…
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that objections on insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and precise. Procedural lapses by the Indian patent office can…
This case brief discusses the Delhi High Court’s analysis of the procedural aspects involved in the re-registration of copyright societies. The judgment underscores the significance of natural justice…