High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Division | Decided: 23rd April, 2019 Notice of Motion (L) No. 197 of 2018 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 114 of 2018 and Notice of Motion (L) No. 198 of 2018 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 113 of 2018 Bench: S.J. Kathawalla, J. Citation: AIRONLINE 2019 […]
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Decided: 10 September 2009 | I.A. No. 7441 of 2008 in C.S. (OS) No. 1206 of 2008 Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar Citation: 2009 SCC OnLine Del (C.S.(OS) No. 1206 of 2008) Background Strix Limited is a company incorporated in 1951 under the name Castletown Thermostats
Delhi High Court | I.A. No. 10115 of 1998 in Suit No. 2469 of 1998 Decided on 19 February 1999 Judge: Dr. M.K. Sharma J. Background Yahoo Inc. is an American company that has been operating as a global Internet media service provider under the trademark and domain name “Yahoo!” since 1994. The domain name
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | CS(OS) 1185/2006 & I.A. Nos. 6486/2006, 6487/2006, 7027/2006; CS(OS) 1996/2009 & I.A. No. 13692/2009 Background The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd., referred to throughout as IPRS, is a non-profit cooperative body incorporated in August 1969 with the object of monitoring, administering and enforcing the performing rights of
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Mr. Aditya Pandey & Anr. Read More »
Delhi High Court (Division Bench) | FAO(OS) No. 352/2010 Decided on 1 November 2010 Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Valmiki J. Mehta Background Marico Limited was the registered proprietor of the trademarks “LOSORB” and “LO-SORB” in Class 29 covering edible oils and allied products. The registrations were effective from 28 May 2001 and
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Decided: 7 November 2014 | FAO(OS) No. 16 of 2014 Background Koninklijke Philips Electronics, the Dutch multinational corporation, had filed an application for a patent in India on 13 February 1995 for an invention described as a “method for converting information words to a modulated signal.” The
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics Read More »
The Register of Trade Marks is not an immutable document. While registration confers significant legal presumptions in favour of the proprietor and is treated as prima facie evidence of validity under Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the register is not beyond challenge. Marks may find their way onto the register through error,
Trademark Rectification Proceedings – Sections 57 to 60 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Read More »
A patent, once granted, is not inviolable. The Patents Act, 1970 recognizes that the grant of a patent is an administrative act performed on the basis of an examination that, however thorough, may not always capture every deficiency in an application whether a failure of novelty, an insufficient disclosure, a statutory exclusion that was not
Revocation of Patents under Section 64 – Grounds and Procedure Read More »
Delhi High Court | Decided: 13 April 2012 I.A. No. 18464/2011 in CS (OS) No. 1421/2005 Bench: Justice Manmohan Singh Citation: 2012 PTC DEL 50 380 | 2012 SCC Online Del 2092 | 2012 CTC IP 3 6 Background AstraZeneca UK Ltd. (plaintiff) was the registered proprietor of the trade mark MERONEM, used for pharmaceutical
AstraZeneca UK Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Read More »
Madras High Court | O.S.A. Nos. 132 and 133 of 2010 | Decided on 4 October 2010 Coram: Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice K.K. Sasidharan Background This dispute arose between two of India’s biggest two-wheeler manufacturers and it was not just about who copied whose technology. It was also about who gets to speak