Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Introduction The case revolves around the trademark registration battle for the mark ‘TAJPURIYA’ in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages, highlighting…

Case Overview The Delhi High Court in a significant ruling has set aside the refusal of a patent application involving…

Madras High Court dismisses appeals by 7-Eleven International LLC, upholds Deputy Registrar’s 2014 order granting “Big Bite” trademark registration in Class 30 to Ravi Foods Private Limited as prior user in India; holds that international reputation and prior foreign adoption/early filing date cannot override local prior use absent proof of goodwill or spillover reputation in India, reinforcing strict application of territoriality under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Delhi High Court holds that in defamation suits filed against anonymous “John Doe” defendants under Section 19 CPC, territorial jurisdiction is determined based on circumstances at the time of institution, and subsequent revelation of defendants’ identities does not warrant return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10, even if it reveals a merger of wrong and residence; demurrer principle applies, barring evidentiary inquiries into plaint documents at threshold stage.

Introduction The Delhi High Court in a significant trademark rectification decision delivered on February 9, 2026, protected the long-standing seniority…

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…