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


搜索 起始日 到期日
Trademark – Non-receipt of consideration for assignment not relevant when same registered

20 May 2016

The Delhi High Court has held that even in case of non-receipt of consideration for assignment of the trademark by the assignor, unless the entry made in the Trademark Register is removed by the appropriate authority, the assignor has no right to infringe the same very mark which is assigned by him. The court on 22-4-2016 in the case of Sa...

National IPR Policy announced

20 May, 2016

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Government of India released the much awaited National IPR Policy (“the Policy”) on May 13, 2016, with a vision to transform India as a knowledge economy. Under the tag line “Creative India; Innovative India,” the Policy hopes to catalyse the innovation ecosystem towards India&rsquo...

Arbitration of copyright issues, permissible

19 May 2016

Bombay High Court has held that copyright issues that arise out of an agreement between parties are subject to arbitration, provided the arbitration clause in the agreement encompasses the same. The court while allowing the matter for arbitration, observed that Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 d...

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...

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