In this case, the Madras High Court sheds light on proving applicant’s right, emphasizing the difference between assignment and declaration dates. This case offers insights for smoother patent applications in India and is likely to provide much-needed clarity to Applicants and Controllers alike who often encounter the same or similar objections relating to proof of right under Section 7(2) and Rule 10 of the Patents Act. Continue Reading Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of…
Madras High Court supports three inventions by overturning three patent refusals on grounds of Lack of valid grounds (RTA-408 case), failure to consider inventive features (fluidized bed boiler case) and procedural error (fuel temperature control case). Continue Reading Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court
“Chand” textile trademark owner loses infringement case against “Chand-A” lungi brand. Court finds long, honest, concurrent use by defendant since 1952 prevents confusion. Lack of concrete evidence weakens plaintiff’s claim of permissive use. Court outlines principles for proving honest and concurrent trademark use. Continue Reading 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.
Delhi High Court banned Javapoint companies from using the “Java” trademark for training and domain names. Though not part of their company names anymore, “Java” usage in services and domain is deemed infringing on Oracle’s trademark rights. This decision protects trademark ownership and sets a precedent for proper usage in the tech industry. Continue Reading Oracle’s proprietary word ‘Java’ cannot be used in the domain name and the company name, says the Delhi High Court
Madras High Court overturned patent refusal for “Image Construction Apparatus” due to insufficient reasoning from the Controller regarding inventive step and Section 3(k). The Court criticized failure to consider the fact that the European Patent Office (EPO) had granted a patent based on the same prior art references and the disregard to analyze technical aspects per Section 3(k). Continue Reading Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High…
Delhi High Court cracks down on piracy! In this case, the Court granted an injunction against 28 rogue websites pirating Universal Studios content. The injunction covers not just existing websites but also future versions and new ones that may arise. This applies to future Universal Studios content as well. ISPs and domain name registrars were ordered to block access and provide details of owners. Continue Reading Another dynamic plus order to curb online piracy from the Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court split on jurisdiction for trademark rectification petitions: firstly stated any High Court, later restricted it to granting IP Office’s jurisdiction. The underlying point is differentiating Trade Marks Act from Patents and Designs Acts and emphasizing convenience for businesses. Continue Reading Where can you file Trademark Rectification Petitions? The Delhi High Court refers the question to a Larger Bench.
In this case, the Telangana High Court found that a letter written by the author in 1989 granting his son the copyrights was valid and that the author’s wife’s later assignments of the copyrights were not valid. Continue Reading R Indira Devi has no Copyrights over Guntur Sushendra Sharma’s “My Country My People”, says the Telangana High Court.
In this case the Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Controller of Patents refusing a patent application based on a ground not raised in the hearing notice. The refusal order was set aside as it lacked proper reasoning as required for inventive step analysis. Continue Reading Refusal of a patent application based on prior art not cited in hearing notice set aside by the Delhi High Court
In this case the Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Controller of Patents refusing a patent application. The refusal order was set aside as it lacked proper reasoning as required for inventive step analysis. Continue Reading Inventive Step analysis requires a rigorous examination, not surface analysis, says the Delhi High Court.