Introduction VVIPs—including heads of state, heads of government, senior ministers, monarchs, and other high-profile dignitaries—are not merely individuals; they are…

Constitutional Dilemma in the Delhi High Court Order The recent order of the Delhi High Court suspending the sentence of…

Abstract The recovery process established in the Income Tax Act, 1961, is essential to enable the government to run the…

Introduction – The Constitutional Framework of Judicial Review in India The question “Is Article 137 judicial review?” requires a nuanced…

Abstract From Article 14’s principle of equal treatment, emerged a doctrine named ‘manifest arbitrariness’ crafted by courts to overturn unchecked…

Introduction – The Constitutional Framework of Right to Education The right to education stands as one of the most transformative…

Introduction This judgment, delivered by a division bench, underscores the distinction between mere prior use and the requirement to establish…

Learn about pasara licence documents required for PSARA registration in India. Step-by-step guide with expert PSARA services by Agile Regulatory.

This judgment settles several critical points in patent litigation, particularly for biologics in quia timet scenarios, affirming that product-to-claim mapping under Rule 3(A)(ix) of the Delhi High Court Patent Suits Rules cannot be entirely dispensed with, even in anticipatory actions; the phrase “to the extent possible” allows flexibility but demands maximum feasible effort, and collateral evidence alone may not suffice for prima facie infringement without raising triable issues.

This judgment settles that in trademark disputes involving registered marks, no statutory infringement action lies against another registered proprietor under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, but passing off remains actionable under common law via Section 27(2), provided the plaintiff proves prior goodwill predating the defendant’s use, misrepresentation, and damage.