Delhi High Court | Dr. M.K. Sharma J. | 26 May 1999 Case Number: Suit No. 2391/1998 | Citation: AIR 2000 Delhi 23 | 80 (1999) DLT 56 | 1999 IV AD (Delhi) 613 BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Standipack Private Limited, claimed to be the patentee of a pouch designed for storage and dispensing of liquids […]
Standipack Private Limited & Another v. M/s Oswal Trading Co. Ltd. & Ors. Read More »
Delhi High Court | Gita Mittal J. | 25 May 2007 | Citation: 142 (2007) DLT 724 | 2007 (35) PTC 95 (Del) | MIPR 2007 (2) 269 BACKGROUND The plaintiffs, Cadbury India Limited and its associated entity, are engaged in the manufacture and sale of confectionery and chocolate products in India, forming part of
Cadbury India Limited & Ors. v. Neeraj Food Products Read More »
Every grant of exclusive rights must, in a society that values both the reward of creative effort and the freedom of public access to culture and knowledge, have a defined limit. Copyright is no exception. The rights that the Copyright Act, 1957 confers upon authors, producers, performers and broadcasters are not permanent. They subsist for
Copyright Duration – Rules for Different Categories of Works under Indian Law Read More »
The question of whether a collection of information facts, data, references, records or other pre-existing material assembled into an organised whole deserves intellectual property protection is among the most contested and practically consequential in copyright law. At its core, it forces a direct confrontation with the foundational tension between two equally legitimate values: the interest
Copyright in Databases and Compilations under Indian Law Read More »
Few questions in contemporary intellectual property law have generated as much urgency, as much disagreement and as much genuine legal uncertainty as the question of who if anyone owns the copyright in a work generated by artificial intelligence. The question is not merely academic. Generative AI systems now produce novels, compose music, paint images, write
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence – Who Owns AI-Generated Works? Read More »
No concept in Indian trademark law is more frequently litigated, more extensively analyzed in judicial decisions or more consequential in its practical application than deceptive similarity. It is the standard by which the Trade Marks Registry determines whether a pending application conflicts with an earlier registration, the criterion by which courts assess whether an allegedly
Deceptive Similarity The Legal Test Under Indian Trademark Law Read More »
Among the most commercially significant and doctrinally complex questions in contemporary Indian trademark law is the extent to which the visual and physical appearance of a product or its packaging its trade dress can be protected as a trademark. In a marketplace saturated with competing products, the overall commercial appearance of goods has become one
Trade Dress and Product Shape as Trademark in India Read More »
Delhi High Court | J.D. Kapoor J. | 29 October 2003 108 (2003) DLT 51 | 2003(27)PTC478(Del) Background Colgate Palmolive Company (Plaintiff No. 1), a US-incorporated multinational and its Indian subsidiary/licensee Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. (Plaintiff No. 2) had been manufacturing and selling tooth powder in India since 1951 in distinctively shaped cans bearing a
Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Read More »
Delhi High Court | Valmiki J. Mehta J. | 25 May 2018 AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 256 | CS (COMM) No. 890/2018 Background Christian Louboutin SAS, the renowned French luxury footwear company, filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking injunction against infringement of its trade marks, passing off and damages. The plaintiff claimed
Supreme Court of India | M. Jagannadha Rao & Y.K. Sabharwal JJ. | 9 May 2000 AIR 2000 SC 2114 | 2000 (5) SCC 573 Background The appellant, S.M. Dyechem Ltd., claimed to have commenced business in 1988 in food products including potato chips, potato wafers, corn-pops and preparations made of rice and rice flour.