Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Role of 'Intent' in Reviving lost Patents and Patent Applications in India

Role of ‘Intent’ in Reviving lost Patents and Patent Applications in India

One of the critical parts of a patent attorney’s work is the management of timelines and deadlines relating to patent files being handled by her/him. On an average, each patent file in India has at least ten (10) deadlines, and if a patent attorney has a portfolio of 100 patents, she/he is looking at at least 1000 dates to track. Read More Continue Reading Role of ‘Intent’ in Reviving lost Patents and Patent Applications in India

Read more

Untitled Design  x

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates are as follows: A hot win for ‘Chaayos’. In the matter of SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT. LTD. v. MTRM GLOBAL PVT. LTD., the plaintiff, owner of the trademark- Chaayos had approached the Delhi High Court against the usage of the mark- Chaiops by the defendants. The suit was filed in September seeking permanent injunction and restraining unauthorised use of the mark by the defendants. The matter was referred to mediation last month which failed and further options to…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "CASE BRIEF: FMC Corporation & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma Limited"

CASE BRIEF: FMC Corporation & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma Limited

Facts (with Timeline): i) FMC Corporation and FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd. (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) were assigned Indian Patent No. 298645 (suit patent/IN’645) titled “Method for preparing N-Phenylpyrazole-1-Carboxamides.” ii) The suit patent disclosed a novel method for preparing anthranilic diamide insecticide compounds. The claimed method involves combining: a carboxylic acid compound of Formula 2, an aniline compound of Formula 3, and a sulfonyl chloride, to prepare a compound of Formula 1 (Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR)). iii) The Plaintiffs brought…

Read more

Untitled Design  x

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates are as follows: Delhi High Court prevents website from using the trademark "Live Law" because of "intent to cash in on goodwill." The Delhi High Court has issued an ad interim injunction in favour of Live Law Media Private Limited, the business that owns the legal portal livelaw.in, preventing "Tiya Law Library" and a Haryana-based attorney from using the mark/name "Live Law" until further orders and ordering the internet service providers to block access to the website…

Read more

Untitled Design  x

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates are as follows: CHAAYOS trademark infringement dispute referred to mediation Sunshine Teahouse Private Limited had filed an infringement suit against the CHAIOPS café. Sunshine claimed that the Defendant’s brand name CHAIOPS was infringing upon their mark CHAAYOS. The Delhi High Court noted that there were no similarities between the device and logo of the two parties and that there existed only phonetic similarity between the two. Hence, stating the possibility of an amicable settlement, the Delhi High…

Read more

Untitled Design  x

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates are as follows: Kashmir seeks to add more products to its GI list Kashmir seeks to obtain the GI tag for five of its crafts: Kashmir Namda, Wagguv, Shikara, Gabba and Kashmir Willow Bat. The Director of the Handicrafts & Handloom Kashmir had an extensive discussion with the authorities of Intellectual Property India, Chennai and requested them to accelerate the process of  registration,  “The dossier for registration of these crafts has already been submitted to the Intellectual…

Read more

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office's Order is Unreasoned - Says Delhi High Court

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

In a recent case involving Gogoro Inc, the Delhi High Court remanded a patent decision back to the patent office on the ground that the order was unreasoned. The Controller of Patents in the case rejected the patent application filed by Gogoro Inc relating to a power charging system on the ground that it lacked inventive step. The Controller cited three prior art references but failed to explain how a person skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "CASE BRIEF : Osram GmbH & Anr. Vs. Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr."

CASE BRIEF : Osram GmbH & Anr. Vs. Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.

Facts Plaintiffs, M/s Osram GmbH and Osram Lighting Private Limited [“OLPL”] filed a suit against Mr. Tejmeet Singh Sethi and Mr. Hartej Singh Sethi (Defendants) claiming their rights in the registered Trademark “OSRAM”. This mark was adopted by OLPL internationally in 1906 and later registered in India in 1945 by General Electric Company Limited. Plaintiffs were engaged in manufacturing a range of products comprising Lumilux Plus Fluorescent Lamps, CFL lamps and other related products. Plaintiffs found that Defendants, who were…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "CASE BRIEF : Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors."

CASE BRIEF : Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Facts: The Petitioner, Phonographic Performance Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, was a registered copyright society. It had assigned the copyright in various sound recordings for communication to the public in the area of public performance and broadcast, through which it owned/controlled the public performance rights of more than 350 music companies with 3 million international and domestic sound recordings. It provided a single window for various parties seeking a license for authorised use of sound recordings.…

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Divisional Applications cannot exceed scope of Parent Application: Delhi High Court"

Divisional Applications cannot exceed scope of Parent Application: Delhi High Court

Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH vs The Controller Of Patents & Anr. on 12 July, 2022 Delhi High Court Facts / Background The Applicant, Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, had filed a National Phase PCT Application on 14th November, 2008, for 'Use of IV Inhibitors'. The patent specification had Claims numbered 1 - 18, with two claims numbered as 15, which were referred to as 15 and 15A. The First Examination Report ("FER") was issued on 24th March, 2014, in response to…

Read more