Case Reviews Archives

Let’s see who gets the ‘Zee’! Prem Biyani vs Zee Entertainment

The Madras High Court overturned the Trade Marks Registry’s decision to reject Prem Biyani’s trademark application for the mark “Zee” under Class 5, which was opposed by Zee Entertainment. The Court noted that Zee Entertainment’s mark, although well-known, was not registered under Class 5 and did not appear in isolation. The case has been remanded to the Trade Marks Registry for reconsideration. Continue Reading Let’s see who gets the ‘Zee’! Prem Biyani vs Zee Entertainment

June 12, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 609Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Warner Bros. dries up the Doodstream.com!

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court ordered Doodstream.com to remove infringing content related to Warner Bros. and comply with Indian laws. The court emphasized the platform’s role in incentivizing piracy and the necessity for stricter compliance measures. Continue Reading Warner Bros. dries up the Doodstream.com!

June 11, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Copyrights, Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law, Privacy / Data Protection 0Comment 1194Views 3Likes

ShareFacebook

High Court of Himachal Pradesh grants Boehringer Ingelheim an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences for patent infringement of diabetes drug Empagliflozin

Boehringer secures Patent Injunction for its Diabetes Drug – Empagliflozin

On May 30, 2024, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted an interim injunction to Boehringer Ingelheim, restraining Eris Lifesciences from manufacturing, selling, or marketing Empagliflozin tablets due to patent infringement. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining scientific integrity and upheld the validity of Boehringer’s patent. Continue Reading Boehringer secures Patent Injunction for its Diabetes Drug – Empagliflozin

June 10, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 978Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Madras High Court criticizes inconsistent patent examination in Industeel France case, emphasizing fair and thorough evaluation for inventors.

Patent examination should not kill the scientific temper of an inventor

The Madras High Court criticized inconsistent patent examination practices in Industeel France’s case, emphasizing the need for a fair and thorough evaluation process. The court ordered a de novo examination by a different Controller and stressed the importance of maintaining scientific temper. Continue Reading Patent examination should not kill the scientific temper of an inventor

June 6, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 489Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Madras High Court clarifies that claim amendments in a patent application do not mean abandoning earlier claims. Learn about the court's decision in Genomatica Inc. vs Controller of Patents

New claims, Old claims, and Claim Amendments: Section 59 of the Patents Act

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court clarified that amending claims in a patent application does not imply abandonment of earlier claims. The court directed that decisions should be based on the amended claims. This analysis was part of Genomatica Inc. vs Controller of Patents case. Continue Reading New claims, Old claims, and Claim Amendments: Section 59 of the Patents Act

June 5, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 508Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on "Renounced Riches, Not Rights! Court uploads Sanyasi's copyrights"

Renounced Riches, Not Rights! Court upholds Sanyasi’s copyrights

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, upholding Srila Prabhupada’s copyrights despite his status as a Sanyasi. The court decreed that Srila Prabhupada’s intellectual property rights were valid and had been rightfully assigned to the Trust. Continue Reading Renounced Riches, Not Rights! Court upholds Sanyasi’s copyrights

June 3, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0Comment 595Views 2Likes

ShareFacebook

Monoclonal antibodies and Patents – How the Madras High Court interpreted Section 3(c)

The Madras High Court clarified the interpretation of Section 3(c) in the context of monoclonal antibodies patent in Genmab A/S v. Assistant Controller of Patents. The court emphasized the importance of novelty and technical advancement for patent eligibility. Continue Reading Monoclonal antibodies and Patents – How the Madras High Court interpreted Section 3(c)

May 31, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 650Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Authors, Copyright and Royalty Share : The Calcutta High Court gives clarity

The Calcutta High Court’s landmark decision in Vodafone v. Saregama clarifies the royalty rights of authors of literary and musical works. The ruling states that authors are entitled to royalties regardless of when their works were created or the nature of copyright ownership transfers. Continue Reading Authors, Copyright and Royalty Share : The Calcutta High Court gives clarity

May 30, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0Comment 975Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

All set for VOMISET : Court restores trademark and allows renewal beyond deadline

Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd successfully petitioned the High Court of Bombay to restore its trademark application for VOMISET and allow its renewal. The Court’s decision was based on the precedent set in the Motwane case, highlighting the importance of proper notification for trademark renewals. Continue Reading All set for VOMISET : Court restores trademark and allows renewal beyond deadline

May 29, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 457Views 2Likes

ShareFacebook

Court criticizes Patent Office for using outdated CRI Guidelines

The Madras High Court criticized the Patent Office for using outdated CRI guidelines of 2016 instead of the revised 2017 guidelines in evaluating Microsoft’s patent application. The court emphasized the importance of assessing technical effect or contribution in CRIs without considering hardware. Continue Reading Court criticizes Patent Office for using outdated CRI Guidelines