Registering trademarks enables brand owners to stop others from using their trademarks and to prevent public confusion about the source of goods or services. However, certain exceptions permit the use of another’s trademark to describe the user’s products or services (as illustrated in Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: Limits on the effect of a registered trade mark).
Continue reading “Descriptive Use as a Defense to Trademark Infringement in India”Category: Abhilasha Niroola
Delhi High Court upholds refusal under Section 3(k) but sets aside Section 59 objection
The Delhi High Court in Kroll Information Assurance, LLC v. Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks upheld refusal under Section 3(k) but set aside the Section 59 objection.
In the present case, the Court considered an appeal under Section 117A from a refusal of Indian Patent Application No. 8100/DELNP/2007 (by order dated 25 June 2019) titled “A System, Method and Apparatus to locate at least one type of person, via a peer-to-peer network.” The prosecution history included objections under Section 2(1)(j)/2(1)(ja), Section 10(4)(c), Section 3(b), and Section 3(k), with a hearing-stage objection to amendments under Section 59/Section 57; the Controller ultimately refused under Section 59, Section 2(1)(j), and Section 3(k).
Continue reading “Delhi High Court upholds refusal under Section 3(k) but sets aside Section 59 objection”Court Emphasizes Reasoned Decisions: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc vs. Controller of Patents and Designs
The Madras High Court, via judgement dated October 22, 2024, in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc vs. Controller of Patents and Designs [(T)CMA(PT) No.191 of 2023] addressed an appeal under Section 3(b) and 59 of the Patents Act (Act) by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals challenging the Indian Patent Office’s (IPO) refusal order dated December 16, 2020 issued in respect of their Indian Patent Application No. 1554/CHENP/2013.
Continue reading “Court Emphasizes Reasoned Decisions: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc vs. Controller of Patents and Designs”
Madras High Court on Patent Inventiveness, Hindsight and Comparative Data in Genentech Case
Madras High Court via recent judgement dated March 28, 2024, in Genentech vs Controller Of Patents And Designs [(T)CMA(PT) No.57 of 2023 (OA/50/2020/PT/CHN)] addressed Genentech, Inc.’s appeal concerning the rejection of its patent application (No. 5832/CHENP/2014) for “Inhibitors of IAP”—organic compounds intended for cancer therapy.
Continue reading “Madras High Court on Patent Inventiveness, Hindsight and Comparative Data in Genentech Case”
Delhi High Court finds ‘WOW’ in the Plaintiff’s case, grants ex parte ad interim injunction against Wow Punjabi
In the matter of Wow Momo Foods Private Limited (Plaintiff) v Wow Punjabi (Defendant) (CS(COMM) 253/2024), the Delhi High Court, vide its order dated 22 March 2024, held that “this Court is satisfied that plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction till the next date of hearing. Balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.”
Continue reading “Delhi High Court finds ‘WOW’ in the Plaintiff’s case, grants ex parte ad interim injunction against Wow Punjabi”
Delhi High Court differentiates between a method of treatment and a method of producing a substance used for treatment
In the matter of Arthrogen GMBH (‘Appellant’) v Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr (‘Respondents’) [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 415/2022], the Delhi High Court, vide its order dated 05.02.2024, set aside the Respondents impugned order dated 28th November 2019 and remanded the matter to the Respondents for de novo consideration while restoring the patent application for the subject patent to its original number.
Continue reading “Delhi High Court differentiates between a method of treatment and a method of producing a substance used for treatment”The Court finds trademark ‘GK WELLNESS’ in contradiction to law & infringing ‘GK HAIR’
The Delhi High Court, on 26 December 26 2023, in Van Tibolli & Anr. (‘Plaintiff(s)’) v. K. Srinivas Rao & Anr. (‘Defendant(s)’) [CS(COMM) 339/2021 & I.A. 8970/20;21] restrained the Defendants, pending disposal of the present suit, from using the mark “GK WELLNESS” in any form, including the logos,
Announcement – Recognition by ‘WIPR Leaders 2021’!
We are pleased to share that members of Mehta & Mehta Associates (MehtaIP) – Ankush Mehta and Abhilasha Niroola have been named in the 2021 edition of WIPR Leaders. Profiling the leading IP practitioners from around the world, WIPR Leaders consists of a directory of entrants. All Leaders were chosen after a four month nomination process, in which WIPR sought views from 12,000 IP professionals.
Continue reading “Announcement – Recognition by ‘WIPR Leaders 2021’!”With the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance of 2021, Appellate Boards for IP matters have been replaced by High Court
The President of India has promulgated the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 on 04 April 2021 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance has been brought to effect immediately.
In the context of Intellectual Property Laws, the present Ordinance has omitted references to “the Appellate Board” and substituted the same with the words “High Court” as applicable under the following statues:
Continue reading “With the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance of 2021, Appellate Boards for IP matters have been replaced by High Court”Announcement – Recognition by ‘Legal 500’
We are pleased to share that Mehta & Mehta Associates (MehtaIP) has been listed by The Legal 500 (Legalease) in the Legal 500 Asia Pacific rankings 2021 as Leading Firm and our members Dr. Ramesh Kr. Mehta, Ankush Mehta, Abhilasha Niroola and Akshay Mehta have been listed as Recommended Lawyers in the Legal 500 Asia Pacific rankings 2021.
Continue reading “Announcement – Recognition by ‘Legal 500’”
MehtaIP 