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

知识产权新闻

搜索 起始日 到期日
Copyrights – Interim injunction cannot be granted on cursory material

27 April 2016

Bombay High Court has refused to grant ad-interim relief in a case of alleged copying of Plaintiff’s registered literary work (script of a movie) without his permission, license or assignment. The Court in its decision in Notice of Motion (L) No. 1153/2016 in Suit (L) No. 343/2016, noted that, it was not known as to whether the Plaint...

No patent to numbering device – IPO invokes Section 3(b)

27 April 2016

Indian Patent Office at New Delhi has refused to grant patent in an application titled ‘Method and device for controlling the position of the numbering wheels of a numbering device’. The Assistant Controller Patents & Designs was of the view that there was a contravention of Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 inasmuch as the prima...

Copyright in sketches for dresses, not registered as design – ‘capable of being registered’ clarified

27 April 2016

Delhi High Court has declined to grant injunction against infringement of copyright in drawings and sketches for dresses when the dresses were created more than 50 times using said design which was not registered under Designs Act. Plaintiff’s contention that once copyright artistic work is excluded from the definition of a design under Sectio...

Trademarks - Ex-parte ad-interim injunction possible only in case of distinctive mark

27 April 2016

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has vacated the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Single Judge Bench against a major mobile and personal computer manufacturer, for use of words ‘Split View’. The Court in its decision in FAO (OS) Comm. 11/2016, held that the issue for consideration was whether ‘Split View...

Rectification proceedings before IPAB without permission of Court trying infringement suit

4 March 2016

Deliberating on the question as to whether prior permission of the Court is necessary under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for rectification of a registered trademark, during the pendency of a suit, the Larger Bench of the Delhi High Court on 5-2-2016 has held that the structure of Section 124 does not indicate that jurisdiction o...

Limitation for restoration application to be construed strictly

4 March 2016

Stating that Section 60 is a self-contained code in the matter of prescribing the period for making an application for restoration with reasons and circumstances which led to the failure to pay the renewal fee and as such the Controller has no power to enlarge the period the Controller held the restoration application as ‘time barred’. Th...

Trademarks – Sales invoice not enough proof of prior use

4 March 2016

Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has held that mere production of solitary document and that too a suspected one is not enough to establish by itself ‘prior use’ and adoption continuously for a substantial period. The Board in this regard noted that the opponent to the registration of the trademark ‘Viking’ in Clas...

Patents – Use of compound by way of particular dosage, not patentable

4 March 2016

The Indian Patent Office at Kolkata has rejected the patent application of ‘Use of 2-6-(3-amino-piperidin-1-yl)-3-methyl-2,4-dioxo-3,4-dihydro-2H-pyrimidin-1-ylmethyl-4-fluoro-benzonitrile’ for treatment of diabetes. The claim that the compound is a succinate salt form, which is novel, was rejected by the Patent office holding the same to...

United State District Court of South New York – Rules on parody

28 January, 2016

Observing that sometimes it is better to ‘accept the implied compliment in parody’ and to smile or laugh rather than sue, the United State District Court of South New York held in favour of the alleged ‘diluter’ of the c. The plaintiff contended that by using its distinctive marks, design and particular reference to its br...

Trademarks – Composite marks to be compared as a whole

28 January, 2016
 
Considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, the Delhi High Court has held that alleged use of the mark BECTODINE by the defendants subsequent to the documented use of the trademark BETADINE by the petitioner, by about 34 years, was fraught with malafide...

Patent for process of testing – Use in ‘manufacture’

28 December, 2015

The Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, in respect of a process patent for testing a drug, has held that infringement only occurs under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), as a result of “making” a product, and does not extend to testing to determine whether an already synthesized drug substance possesses existing qualities. Section 271(g)...

US Court rules on whether display of results in web search can infringe

12 November, 2015

In yet another interesting tussle between retailers who chose not to opt for a particular e-commerce portal and the inevitable, may be, unintended results of the internet search yielding trademarked goods in the results page, the United States Court For Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (CAFC) put forth its views on initial interest confusion, possi...

Page(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
若需要较早的文档请参阅档案部分
搜索 团队成员
搜索 团队成员
按名字字母顺序
A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H|I|J
K|L|M|N|O|P|Q|R|S|T
U|V|W|X|Y|Z
Enter at least a name or a keyword to search