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
Supreme Court of India | Civil Appeal Nos. 4767-4769 of 2001 Decided on 29 November 2017 Background P.M. Diesels Ltd. was the registered owner of three trademarks all carrying the words “Field Marshal.” The registrations dated back to 1964 and 1968 and covered the marks “Field Marshal,” “Field Marshal” in a specific lettering style and
Patel Field Marshal Agencies & Anr. v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. & Ors. Read More »
Delhi High Court (Division Bench) | AIR 1985 Delhi 29 | 1 August 1984 | Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. Background Penguin Books Ltd. of England, the plaintiff-appellant, is one of the world’s most recognized publishing houses. It held territorially exclusive licenses and assignments of copyright in 23 titles for the Indian market – including celebrated
Penguin Books Ltd. v. India Book Distributors & Ors. Read More »
Kerala High Court | C.M.A. No. 329 of 1995 | 27 February 1996 | T.V. Ramakrishnan, J. Background The original drama at the centre of this dispute is Ningal Enne Communistakki (“Who Made You a Communist?”), written in 1952 by the celebrated Malayalam playwright Thoppil Bhasi while he was living in political hiding as an
Civic Chandran & Others v. C. Ammini Amma & Others Read More »
Bombay High Court | February 10, 2003 | 2004 (28) PTC 193 (Bom) S.J. Vazifdar, J. Background The trademark “M-Seal” has a long and well-documented history. It was first used in 1968 by Mahindra Van Wijk and Visser Ltd. in respect of epoxy resin compositions used for cementing cracks, holes and leaks in metal articles.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. vs. S.M. Associates & Ors. Read More »
The journey of a trademark application from the moment it is filed to the point at which it is accepted for advertisement is one of the most consequential phases in the entire registration process. It is during this period that the Trade Marks Registry scrutinizes the application against the requirements of the Trade Marks Act,
Trademark Examination in India – From Filing to Acceptance Read More »