Introduction The Delhi High Court in a significant trademark rectification decision delivered on February 9,…

Introduction Every creative work carries a silent story of effort, discipline and sacrifice. A research…

Introduction The case of Yokogawa Electric Corporation v. Union of India represents a significant judicial…

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,…

Introduction The Delhi High Court in a detailed Division Bench judgment delivered on 28 January…

Psychological Context and Global Politics Sigmund Freud said, “Neurosis is the result of a conflict…

Introduction Patent law in India provides inventors with exclusive rights to their inventions for a…

Introduction In a vibrant democracy, protest is both inevitable and indispensable. Among the many symbolic…

Introduction The case of Sunflame Enterprises Private Limited v. Kitchenopedia Appliances Private Limited & Anr.…

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.

Domain Names as Corporate Identity: Overview In the contemporary digital economy, domain names have evolved…

India is one of the few countries in the world with the capability to design…

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…

Introduction: Trademark Dispute The dispute arose from overlapping names beginning with “Rexcin” and “Rekin,” but…

Delhi High Court dismisses Canva’s appeal against interim injunction for infringing RxPrism’s patent on interactive content system; upholds single judge’s prima facie findings on layered architecture, configurability, and doctrine of equivalents; emphasizes claim-centric analysis for infringement and validity, rejecting product-to-product comparisons and unsubstantiated prior art challenges;

This judgment clarifies that under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, “reasonable cause” for non-disclosure of documents with the written statement demands a genuine, specific explanation, with a lower proof threshold than “good cause” but mandating demonstration that documents were not in the defendant’s power, possession, custody, or control at filing; mere delay or post-appeal discovery without prior diligence does not suffice, reinforcing the Commercial Courts Act’s intent for vigilant, time-bound litigation over procedural leniency in ordinary suits.