Since February 2020, the Covid-19 (also known as Coronavirus) pandemic has been a major talking point and consequently many pandemic referenced words are being used as trademarks and are being filed for registration at Trademark Registries worldwide.

Article in June 2020 issue of IPR Amicus discusses elaborately the recent decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Competition Commission of India and Ors.

The article in this issue of IPR Amicus elaborately discusses a recent decision of the Bombay High Court which, while dealing with the issue of disparagement by a video blogger, laid down the principles by which any such video or any statement can be considered to be defamatory.

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court recently examined whether trade secret protection can be granted to know-how with respect to a particular invention that has been patented outside India. The Court held that the Defendants cannot be said to be committing passing off with respect to the know-how of the Plaintiff no.1 passed to the Defendants since know-how/trade secret/confidential information is not a ‘property’ and no relief in rem can be claimed with respect to it.

The Delhi High Court recently held that once a person has contributed to any cinematographic film in any manner, then as per the moral rights, he/ she has right to paternity. The Single Judge upheld an order of the Trial Court granting mandatory interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff.

Two co-ordinate Single Judge Benches of the Delhi High Court have recently arrived at opposing conclusions as to whether to grant interim injunction or not in favour of the Plaintiffs/Patentee in a batch of patent infringement suits in relation to a pharmaceutical composition. Analysing the two decisions threadbare, the author states that the question as to what constitutes “Coverage” and “Disclosure” in the context of genus and species patent is still uncertain, and that the determination of th

The article in this 100th issue of IPR Amicus elaborately discusses a recent decision of the Delhi High Court on patentability of computer related inventions (CRIs). The High Court has reiterated the principle that if the invention demonstrates a “technical effect” or a “technical contribution”, it is patentable even though it is based on a computer program. The Court pointed out that the effect which the computer program produces is crucial in determining patentability.

The article in this issue of IPR Amicus attempts to provide few insights into the sufficiency of disclosure in a patent specification. The authors note that according to the Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the field of pharmaceuticals issued by the Indian Patent Office, a complete specification must be sufficient to enable the whole width of the claimed invention to be carried out and also provide the best method of performing the invention, and that the sufficiency of discl

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently held that once the patentee has filed its reply-statement, he is not required to provide any separate reasons for cross-examination of the witnesses whose affidavits are filed by the opponent in support of its post-grant opposition.

The Article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses as to how Biological Diversity Rules of different States of India are not in tandem with the Biological Diversity Act 2002 (BDA) which was enacted by India in adherence to its ratification to Rio de Janeiro’s Convention on Biological Diversity.