Trending
- Simplifying LMPC Registration for Imports with Expert Support
- Reclaiming Voices: Women’s Personal Narratives and the Power of Storytelling in India’s Gender Struggle
- Procedural Safeguards Under CPC For Effective Resolution Of Medical Negligence Allegations
- Logical Discrepancy as a Ground for Voter Deletion during SIR in West Bengal: A Legal Analysis
- Analyzing the Landmark Judgment: Budhadev Karmakar v. State of West Bengal (2022) – A Step Towards Dignity for Sex Workers in India
- NVRA-Style Protections: State Bears a Heavy Burden Before Removing a Voter from the Rolls
- Procedural Separation in Patent Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition
- Balancing Registration Rights and Prior User Goodwill
Intellectual Property
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
Observation That Judicial Officers and Commissioners Must Be Protected observation that judicial officers and commissioners…
Facts: Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited v/s Registrar of Trade Marks Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited, a…
Facts: The case arises out of a commercial dispute between Pas Agro Foods, a partnership firm…
Facts The appellant, Novenco Building and Industry is a Danish company involved in manufacturing high-efficiency…
In an era defined by the velocity of digital innovation and the transnational flow of…
Vishal Sakhla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh | FIR Quashing under Copyright and Drugs Act:…
Introduction: Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wow Burger – Trademark Infringement Case The case…
Facts: Grasim Industries Limited vs Saboo Tor Private Limited – Trademark Dispute Over ‘Birla’ This…
Facts: Trademark Case: Chaitanya Arora Vs. Shoban Salim Thakur – Suppression of Material Facts The…
Facts of the Case: Le Shark Trademark Dispute: Bombay High Court Judgment The case revolves…
Facts: Rolls-Royce Trademark Case: Mandatory Timelines under Trade Marks Act, 1999 Imagine a world-famous brand…
Facts of the Case: Atomberg Technologies vs Eureka Forbes: Supreme Court Transfers Patent Case to…
Facts: Maarg (India) Vs King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd. – Trademark Dispute Judgment 2025 Maarg…
Fact: Trademark Infringement Case: Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Alchem International Pvt. Ltd The plaintiff, Alkem…
Facts of the Case – Bima Sugam Trademark Case – Delhi High Court Judgment (2025)…
Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jubilant Generics Ltd. and Others Factual Background Jubilant Generics…
EMD Millipore Corporation Vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs – Case Summary Fact The…
Fact of the Case This case arises from a dispute between Ms. Rajilaxmi Oils and…
Case Overview Facts: Lifestyle Equities C.V., headquartered in Amsterdam, along with its Indian licensee, owned…
Authority for Police to Act Suo Motu Under Section 64 The authority for police to…
© 2026 Legal Service India – Law, lawyers & legal Resources.
India’s Oldest Independent Digital Legal Knowledge Platform
ISBN: 978-81-928510-0-6
India’s Oldest Independent Digital Legal Knowledge Platform
ISBN: 978-81-928510-0-6