Introduction The case of Yokogawa Electric Corporation v. Union of India represents a significant judicial pronouncement on the procedural rigours…

Patents Act, 1970 — Sections 14, 15, 25(1) and Rule 55(5) — Examination and pre-grant opposition — Distinct and independent proceedings — Requirement of separate hearings where objections or prior art differ — Composite order must demarcate examination and opposition findings — Mechanical adoption of opponent’s submissions vitiates order — Violation of natural justice warrants remand to different Controller for fresh consideration — Appeal allowed.

Held: Where FER objections and opposition grounds are not identical and new prior art is introduced in opposition, separate hearings under Sections 14 and 25(1) are mandatory. Controller must independently apply mind and provide reasons. Pre-grant opponent has no locus in examination proceedings. Matter remanded for de novo consideration with liberty to all parties on merits

Introduction The batch of appeals decided by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, represents a watershed moment in…

Introduction The Delhi High Court in a detailed Division Bench judgment delivered on 28 January 2026, addressed cross-appeals arising from…

Introduction The case of Sunflame Enterprises Private Limited v. Kitchenopedia Appliances Private Limited & Anr. exemplifies a classic trademark battle…

Delhi High Court granted injunction against Dabur’s Cool King Thanda Tael for passing off through deceptively similar red trade dress, bottle design, and marks imitating Emami’s Navratna Oil. The judgment underscores trade dress protection based on acquired distinctiveness in the therapeutic cooling oil market.

Delhi High Court allows appeal against trial court’s interim injunction in trademark suit over “ATHERMAL,” holding appellant’s prima facie prior use since 1990 through predecessor superior to respondents’ 2017 registration and 2003 claim, distinguishes approbate and reprobate as inapplicable to primary mark, sets aside order.

In this consolidated judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking mandamus and certiorari against trademark acceptance orders, holding that Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, grants the Registrar discretionary suo moto power to withdraw erroneous acceptances without provision for third-party applications, directing aggrieved parties to opposition under Section 21; allowed appeal against refusal order due to Registry inconsistencies, mandating unified adjudication of related proceedings.

Madras High Court set aside the dismissal of opposition to registration of the mark ‘Nandini’ in Class 3 for agarbattis, holding that identical phonetic identity and stylisation create deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion with the appellant’s well-known ‘Nandini’ mark for dairy products, distinguishing it from the Supreme Court’s Nandhini Deluxe judgment due to absence of differentiating elements like suffix or different get-up.

Introduction The case of M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Pyromaitre INC. and Others represents a significant judicial examination…