Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan 律师事务所An ISO 9001 / 27001 certified law firm


搜索 起始日 到期日
Design – Each component of design need not be tested for originality and novelty

15th May 2017

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of plastic insulated products claimed infringement of the registered design of its water bottle ‘PURO’ with a two-tone colour scheme, flip top and unique surface pattern and that the ‘Kudoz’ bottles sold by the defendant would mislead the public into thinking they were products of the pla...

Use of a descriptive of services as trademark eligible for IP protection

8th May 2017

The plaintiff was the proprietor of the registered label marks comprising the word “Darzi” and was using the same for providing tailoring services. The defendants on the other hand were using the mark “Darzi on call” also for tailoring services.  They argued that the name was generic and the plaintiffs could not c...

Production bible of TV show without novel elements is not a copyrightable work

11th May 2017

The plaintiff claimed that its copyright in the format/elements of a reality show to identify children with acting talent was infringed by the defendant who had also produced a show aimed at identifying talented children.

The plaintiff produced a production bible which laid out the format of the show, its thematic concept, var...

The Trademark & Corporate name conundrum

21st March 2017

Summary :

Before the Full Bench of High Court of Bombay, in the case of Cipla Limited v. M/s Cipla Industries Pvt. Ltd., the question pertaining to the use of a registered trademark as a corporate name in case of dissimilar goods was brought by way of reference from the Single Judg...

Bolar exemption permits exports of patented invention

21st March 2017


By Judgment & order dated March 08, 2017, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court interpreted the exemption to infringement under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 (Act) to hold that said exemption permits exports from India of a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related ...

Appeal to High Court in a Commercial dispute – Delhi HC clarifies on appealable orders

A two-judge bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in HPL (I) Ltd. v. QRG Enterprises [FAO (OS) (COMM) No. 12/2017], has recently issued a ruling limiting the types of orders from which an appeal is permitted for a Commercial Dispute governed by the recently enacted Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Act, 2015 (...

Can non-working of a patent in India affect an interim injunction order

7th February 2017
Facts in brief :

Plaintiff, Bayer Intellectual Property GmBH, is a company incorporated under the laws of Germany. The plaintiff is the owner of patents IN 225529 and IN 188419 that relate to drugs VARDENAFIL and VARDENAFIL HYDROCHLORIDE respectively. The plaintiff filed an infringement sui...

Phonetically and deceptively similar Trademarks prohibited in pharmaceuticals

7th February 2017
Facts in brief :
Plaintiff, Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd, is a registered user of trademark “GABAPIN”. “GABAPIN”, in 1997, was adopted for marketing its medicinal product containing a chemical compound known as “Gabapentine”. Defendant, Macleods Pharma...

UK moves on with Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill

25th January 2017

The Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill introduced in May 2016, passed the stage of Second Reading earlier this month. It will now be considered by a Public Bill Committee before it proceeds for Third Reading and amendments if any.

The Bill seeks to amend the existing provisions as regards safeguard against gr...

Copyright infringement – Liability of an online intermediary

25th January 2017

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 23-12-2016 has reversed a decision of the Single Judge on the issue of liability of an intermediary in copyright infringement. The appellant in case of Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd, was a service provider providing free platform for uploading of audio or video along with other...

Trademarks - Permitted user cannot institute an infringement suit

25th January 2017

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 4-1-2017  has set aside the decision of the Single Judge and returned the plaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff No. 2 being a ‘permitted user’ as defined under Section 2(1)(r)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 could not have instituted the suit by virtue of Section 52 of the ...

Trademarks – Delhi HC grants interim injunction for use of mark ‘Aqua’ for mobile phones

25th January 2017

A Single Judge  of the High Court of Delhi on 24-12-2016  has granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff observing that they had established a strong prima facie case for priority showing prior use and goodwill in the mark ‘Aqua’ in relation to mobile phones.

The Court in this case...

Page(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 
搜索 团队成员
搜索 团队成员
Enter at least a name or a keyword to search