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 […]
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
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 »
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
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 »
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 »
The grant of a patent is not an automatic entitlement that follows from novelty or inventive step alone. Before any invention can be examined on those standard criteria, it must first clear a foundational threshold: it must constitute a patentable subject matter under Indian law. The Patents Act, 1970 draws this threshold with deliberate precision
Non-Patentable Subject Matter in India: A Complete Guide to Section 3 Read More »
The examination of a trademark application in India operates at two distinct levels. The first level, governed by Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerns the inherent qualities of the mark itself – whether it is distinctive, whether it is descriptive, whether it offends public policy. These are the absolute grounds and they
Relative Grounds for Refusal under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Read More »
Supreme Court of India | April 26, 1990 | 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727 M.N. Venkatachaliah, N.D. Ojha & J.S. Verma, JJ. Background Wander Ltd. was the registered proprietor of the trademark “Cal-De-Ce” in respect of vitaminsed Calcium Gluconate Tablets. In March 1986, Wander Ltd. entered into a manufacturing agreement with Antox India (P) Ltd.,