Exploring recent judgments from the Delhi, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts on trademark disputes involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet vs. Nikoda Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’, and understanding the courts’ approach to trademark protection. Continue Reading Interesting Trademark Cases involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’ Marks
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. Continue Reading Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark
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. Continue Reading Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?
Protein-free foaming innovation revived! Madras High Court overturns patent refusal due to Controller’s failure to address key arguments and consider crucial differences from prior art. This judgment highlights the importance of thorough analysis and considering applicant submissions in patent decisions. Continue Reading Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside
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
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.