BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Image accompanying blogpost on "PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft. "

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

The Madras High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that rejected Microsoft’s patent application for “Message Communication of Sensor and other Data.” The Court clarified that the “person skilled in the art” (PSITA) used to assess the inventive step is not omniscient and cannot be presumed to possess the inventive solution claimed in the patent. Continue Reading PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.
March 6, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 90Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks"

Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

Kalyan Jewellers successfully defended its trademarks ‘Kalyan’ and ‘Kalyan Jewellers’ against cybersquatting through a recent Madras High Court ruling. The Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name “kalyanjewellers.com” to Kalyan Jewellers after the WIPO arbitration panel couldn’t decide on the case due to the requirement of proving bad faith. Continue Reading Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks
March 5, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 108Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?"

Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?

This blog post discusses a recent court case in India concerning the validity of raising a trademark invalidity plea against an interim application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. The court ruled that a plea of invalidity can be raised not only in the written statement but also in other pleadings and submissions, including counter-affidavits to interim applications. Continue Reading Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?
February 29, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 98Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark"

Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark

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
February 27, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 127Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?"

Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

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?
February 26, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 129Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Refusal of patent application relating to 'Soluble Foaming Composition' set aside"

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

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
February 22, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 144Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Madras High court provides clarity on Proof of right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different."

Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different.

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…
February 21, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 184Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "by the Madras High Court"

Review and Reversal of Patent Refusal Orders by the Madras High Court

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
February 21, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 190Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "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."

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.

“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.
February 19, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 442Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras High Court"

Refusal of Patent for “Image Construction Apparatus” based on Section 3(k) and Inventive Step set aside by the Madras 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…
February 17, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 237Views 0Like
Share

Read more