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
Trademark infringement – Similarity of marks to be considered first


15 May 2017

Observing that the marks FERANTA and INTAS’ FERINTAS are sufficiently distinguishable and does not satisfy Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs in a trademark infringement and passing off suit.

The Court in it...

Trademarks – German origin word which is not indicative of business, is not generic


18 May 2017

Taking note of the fact that plaintiff had acquired a distinctive reputation and goodwill of its own under the trade names “ASIAN HAUS” and “SUSHI HAUS” for its food delivery outlets, Delhi High Court has restrained the defendants by an interim injunction from using the name “HAUS” for latter’s food de...

Patents – Correction under Section 78


22 May 2017

Delhi High Court has set aside the ‘deemed to be withdrawn’ status of a patent application and restored the Indian National Phase application. The issue involved incorrect mention of the number of the patent application in Form 18 as well as in its covering letter, and absence of communication from the department seeking correction...

Vacation of interim injunction on basis of non-binding undertaking, not correct


25 May 2017

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 12 April 2017 has set aside the decision of the Single Judge Bench wherein the latter had vacated the earlier ex-parte interim injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiffs in a designs infringement case.

The Single Judge Bench had vacated the interim order on the basis of un...

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

Summary:

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...

Page(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
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