21st March 2017
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...
22 July, 2015
The Supreme Court of India has held that suits against infringement of trademark and copyright can be instituted only in the District Court that exercises jurisdiction over the place where the cause of action (in whole or in part) arises, in the case where the plaintiff instituting the suit has an office in that jurisdiction. In Indian Performing Rights Society<...
22 December, 2014
A question arose as to whether the mark MOMARID to be registered for pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations is likely to cause confusion with an existing mark LONARID for pharmaceutical and sanitary preparations. The General Court relying on various case laws opined that medicines, whether or not issued on prescription, can be regarded as receiving a heightened degree of...
24 July 2013
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has held that it has the power to review its own orders. It was noted that if the litigant had the right of review before the High Court either in appeal or in application, when the appeals were transferred to the IPAB, it cannot be taken away by the Board. It was noted that for the purpose of dispute resolving power and procedure,...
By Nupur Kumar
A Full bench (Three Judges) of the Delhi High Court recently held that prior permission of the Court is not necessary under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TMA) for filing a rectification petition before the IPAB during the pendency of an infringement suit.
A reference was made to the Full bench of ...
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 Prashant Reddy
In a new dimension to enforcement of trademark rights in India, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of the Government of India has reportedly initiated action against two firms for allegedly infringing the registered trademarks of the public sector enterprise, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL).
As per news reports, the alleged infringers were conversion agen...
By Vindhya Srinivasamani & Subhash Bhutoria
Deciding an appeal [ see end note 1 ], the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has set aside the Single Judge's decision [ see end note 2 ], which recognized the popular "Hot News" doctrine and quasi-proprietary rights in the information emanating from cricketing events and held that the publication of scores and ball-by-ball update ...
By Piyush Sharma & Pulkit Doger
In accordance with the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (‘the Act’), Section 3 lists what are not considered to be inventions and therefore, non-patentable. Section 3(k) reads as follows:
"3. The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act,
(k) a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorit...
© Copyright 1985-2017 Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, All Rights Reserved.