Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

This image contains the following text: Mitsui Chemicals Inc. vs Controller of Patents. Section 3(h), Procedural adherence and Patent refusal.

Delhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.

The Delhi High Court, in a recent decision dated February 23, 2024, in Mitsui Chemicals Inc. vs Controller of Patents, overturned the patent refusal order issued by the Controller in respect of patent application No. 3877/DELNP/200. This decision underscores the significance of procedural adherence, especially in handling of claims during the national phase entry of PCT applications. Background/Facts Mitsui Chemicals (the Appellant) filed a PCT national phase application titled "Plant Disease and Insect Damage Control Composition and Plant Disease and Insect…

Read more

Image accompanying the blog post "No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL; court dismisses injunction petition."

No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.

The Delhi High Court while deciding an application for interim injunction, held that the defendants did not infringe the plaintiff’s registered trademarks or pass off its products as those of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, instituted a civil suit, against Defendant 1, Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. ("SSPL"), and Defendant 2, Rachna Nitin Jindal, wife of Nitin Kumar Jindal, Manager of SSPL, based on its rights over the word mark “JINDAL” registered in classes 6 and 17. The Plaintiff’s case was that the…

Read more

All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents

All elements rule versus Doctrine of equivalents, a recent decision by Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court in a recent patent infringement dispute, held that ‘all-elements rule’ cannot be adopted to the exclusion of the ‘pith and marrow rule’. Facts: SNPC Machines (Plaintiff) sought a permanent injunction against Mr. Vishal Choudhary (Defendant) for manufacturing and selling brick-making machines which were similar to plaintiffs’ brick-making machines granted under patent nos. 353483, 359114, 374814, and 385845. Further, relief was also sought by the plaintiff for infringement of copyright in literature/ specification/ artistic features related to the…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits"

Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits

The Delhi High Court allowed an interlocutory injunction against the Defendants to restrict their use of the mark “TOWER” to manufacture and sell dry fruits. This Court stated that a defendant cannot determine the ambit of what constitutes “Plaintiff’s goods of interest”. Continue Reading Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections."

The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.

The Delhi High Court has sent a trademark application for the word “Bharat” with a device back to the examiner for re-evaluation. While a previous court order ruled the mark distinctive, it failed to address objections about potential genericness. This case highlights the importance of a thorough trademark examination process. Continue Reading The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court"

Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc & Anr vs the Controller of Patents, accepted an appeal challenging the refusal order dated August 19, 2021, issued by the Assistant Controller in respect of patent application No. 2458/DELNP/2013. Brief Facts The patent application titled “Nonwoven Composite Abrasive Comprising Diamond Abrasive Particles” was filed before the Indian Patent Office on March 20, 2013. Pursuant to a request for examination by the appellant, a First Examination Report…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration "

Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration

The Delhi High Court has faulted the Patent Office for rejecting a patent application without adequate reasoning. The case involved a beverage can closure design, and the Controller’s decision lacked clarity and failed to address the applicant’s arguments effectively. The Court has sent the case back for a proper re-examination, highlighting the need for thoroughness in patent application reviews. Continue Reading Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement."

Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.

The Delhi High Court in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma addressed a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the anti-cancer drug Olaparib. To counter a patent infringement claim, the defendant needs to raise a plausible challenge to the patent’s validity. Patent coverage (what the patent protects) is distinct from the specific details disclosed in the patent document. This case involved a species patent (Olaparib) claimed within the scope of a broader genus patent. Continue Reading Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF INFRINGEMENT, STAY OF SUIT AND DAMAGES IN TRADEMARK CASES"

The changing dynamics of Infringement, Stay of Suit and damages in Trademark Cases

This blog post summarizes four recent trademark cases from various High Courts across India, and provides important takeaways relating to trademarks. In one of the cases, the Karnataka High Court pointed out that a trademark infringement suit can be stayed if a rectification is pending against the same trademark, although it was filed by another party. In another suit, the Delhi High Court, allowed the Defendant in the suit to conduct business under a modified name during the pendency of…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections."

Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.

The Delhi High Court recently highlighted the importance of clear and detailed reasoning in patent office rejections. In this case of Calm Water Therapeutics LLC’s patent application, the court found the initial rejection order by the patent office to be flawed as the revised claim was not considered and no detailed explanation was provided in the rejection. The court emphasized the need for the Patent Office to provide clear explanations and conduct thorough examinations before rejecting applications. Continue Reading Patent…

Read more