BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Trademark removal only after notice, and Fly Hi/Timespro Injunctions

Trademark removal only after notice, and Fly Hi/Timespro Injunctions

Recent trademark cases include injunctions against ‘Fly Hi’ and ‘Timespro’ by the Delhi High Court, and a pivotal Bombay High Court decision on renewal notices for trademark removal. These cases highlight the courts’ proactive stance in protecting registered trademarks and ensuring proper procedural adherence for trademark renewal and removal, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action. Continue Reading Trademark removal only after notice, and Fly Hi/Timespro Injunctions
March 1, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 537Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Prosecution History Estoppel applies to trademark cases, Confirms the Bombay High Court"

Prosecution History Estoppel applies to trademark cases, confirms the Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the “prosecution history estoppel” principle applies to trademark cases. This means that statements made during the trademark registration process about similarities with other trademarks can be used against the applicant in future infringement lawsuits. The Court also emphasized the importance of disclosing all relevant information, including prosecution history, in trademark lawsuits. Continue Reading Prosecution History Estoppel applies to trademark cases, confirms the Bombay High Court.
February 29, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 564Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?"

Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?

This blog post discusses a recent court case in India concerning the validity of raising a trademark invalidity plea against an interim application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. The court ruled that a plea of invalidity can be raised not only in the written statement but also in other pleadings and submissions, including counter-affidavits to interim applications. Continue Reading Will a trademark invalidity plea in response to an interim application count for Section 124?
February 29, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 371Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Interesting Trademark Cases involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’ Marks

Interesting Trademark Cases involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’ Marks

Exploring recent judgments from the Delhi, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts on trademark disputes involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet vs. Nikoda Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’, and understanding the courts’ approach to trademark protection. Continue Reading Interesting Trademark Cases involving ‘Biriyani King’, ‘MI Sumeet’, and ‘Toofan’ Marks
February 28, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 422Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark"

Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark

In this case, the Madras High Court highlights the importance of addressing similarity concerns and pursuing registration as a label mark for stronger protection. This case with help gain insights for navigating trademark challenges in India. Continue Reading Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark
February 27, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 499Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?"

Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

Learn how a system for concealing user addresses in online transactions was deemed patentable, distinguishing it from excluded “business methods.” Gain insights for navigating patent applications in the digital age. Continue Reading Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?
February 26, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 379Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Refusal of patent application relating to 'Soluble Foaming Composition' set aside"

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Protein-free foaming innovation revived! Madras High Court overturns patent refusal due to Controller’s failure to address key arguments and consider crucial differences from prior art. This judgment highlights the importance of thorough analysis and considering applicant submissions in patent decisions. Continue Reading Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside
February 22, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 371Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Connect with Us

BananaIP Counsels

No.40, 3rd Main Road, JC Industrial Estate, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

Telephone: +91-76250 93758 |  +91-80-49536207 | +91-80-26860414/24/34
Email: contact@bananaip.com

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Checkboxes
BananaIP Counsels

BananaIP has been acknowledged as a women-owned enterprise, certified by WEConnect International.

WeConnect International certifies BananaIP as a Woman-Owned Firm

Connect with us

BananaIP Counsels

Office Address

No.40, 3rd Main Road,  JC Industrial Estate, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

Telephone: +91-76250 93758 | +91-80-49536207 | +91-80-26860414/24/34

Email: contact@bananaip.com

© 2004-2024 BananaIP Counsels. All Rights Reserved.