Introduction The Delhi High Court has sent a clear message to litigants in intellectual property…

Introduction Intellectual Property (IP) disputes often arise when creative or innovative works are used for…

Introduction Rose is a flower which is known for its beauty and smell, isn’t it?…

Introduction The case revolves around the trademark registration battle for the mark ‘TAJPURIYA’ in Class…

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

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,…

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.