By Vindhya Srinivasamani
This case pertains to a suit filed by CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited against Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its patent IN202302 (suit patent) for “A system and method for preventing and/or detecting explosion and/or fire of electrical transformers”, with an appl...
By Rohini Dutta
Divisional patent applications refer to such patent applications which have been divided out from a first filed patent application, also called a parent application. Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970 (Act) lays down the principle for filing of a divisional application. Divisional pat...
By Dr Sheetal Vohra, Nupur Kumar, Tulika Pandey
Getting trademark protection for slogans is often accompanied by one particular hurdle of retaining exclusivity, which results from their descriptive nature. A slogan is generally a combination of common words which describes the goods or services, or glorifies the goods and/or services of the company. Due ...
By Sanuj Das
Nearly three years after Merck (patentee) initiated an infringement action over its patented diabetics drug sitagliptin (Indian Patent 209816, sold under the brand names Januvia and Janumet), the Delhi High Court recently permanently restrained the defendant from the business of Sitagliptin.
Dated: Oct 23, 2015
By Dr. Mukundan Chakrapani
The Indian Patent Office recently released the final version of the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions. They offer much needed clarity on the vexing issue of determining subject matter eligibility of Computer Related Inventions (“CRI”), a.k.a. software inventions. A standout feature of the fin...
By Dr. Amitavo Mitra
‘Make in India’ is a flagship, nation-wide initiative of the Government of India launched in September 2014. Under this initiative, the government has identified 25 key sectors for attracting foreign investment in order to develop indigenous expertise, create jobs, and encourage intellectual ingenuity. Some of the key sec...
By Raghav Sarda
Under the Indian IP system, a clear distinction has been made between rights available under the Designs Act, 2000 (“the Designs Act”) and the Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Copyright Act”), to avoid any overlap in protection under the two Acts. However, owing to a similarity in the work protectable under these laws, cr...
By Vindhya Srinivasamani
Since the inception of the Patents Act, 1970, Indian patent law has been a process patent regime in the field of pharmaceuticals. Based on the recommendations of a committee chaired by Judge Rajagopala Ayyangar in 1959, product patent protection in the pharmaceutical sector was abolished in order to ensure that medicines were available to the public at ...
By Dr. Gaurav Gupta
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) formed a six member committee on 22nd October, 2014 to formulate National IPR Policy. The committee, referred to as the “IPR Think Tank”, is headed by Justice Prabha Sridevan, former judge at Madras High Court and Chairperson of Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The draft National IPR Policy was released ...
By Aastha Aggarwal and Konpal Rae
The registration of designs in India is governed by the Designs Act, 2000, which was made effective from May 11, 2001, and the Design Rules, 2001. As per the Act, a design registration protects the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation or composition of lines or colors applied to articles. Since a design registration seeks to...
By Sarita Rout
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently dwelt upon the rules for determining deceptive similarity and consequent trade mark infringement when the conflicting trade marks under consideration are composite marks i.e. marks comprising of more than one element.
In the matter of South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc.[see end note 1], the appellan...
By Vindhya S. Mani
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide its recent order dated 7th November, 2014 in Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Another v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics [FAO (OS) No. 16 of 2014] upheld the order of the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court [2013 (56) PTC 570 (Del)] holding that revocation of a patent is not automatic under Section 64(1)(m) of the Patents Act, 1970...
© Copyright 1985-2017 Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, All Rights Reserved.