Intellectual Property Archives | Page 18 of 269

Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.

Unlicensed music played at sporting events can lead to copyright infringement lawsuits. This blog post explores a case where the event organizer blamed sponsors for the music, highlighting the complexities of copyright compliance during large events. Continue Reading Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.

April 18, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0Comment 463Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Delhi High Court upholds decision against Google LLC in patent appeal, imposes Rs.1 lakh fine for misleading disclosure. Case delves into inventive step assessment, citing prior art and user preferences. Authored by Sowmya Murthy, Patents Team, BananaIP Counsels. Case Citation: Google LLC v. The Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 395/2022 Continue Reading Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

April 16, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 541Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision to refuse CEAT Limited’s trademark application for “FARMAX.” Citing significant delay and potential confusion with existing marks, the Court dismissed the appeal. The decision underscores the importance of timely action and highlights the necessity for distinctiveness in trademark applications. Learn more about the case: Ceat Limited vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks. Continue Reading Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal

April 15, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 493Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2

While Part 1 of the Ericsson vs. Lava post series covered the summary of the court's judgement, this post discusses the principles reiterated by the Court recently in the Ericsson vs. Lava case, for analyzing inventions in the context of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Lava filed a counterclaim against Ericsson’s patents in which Lava challenged that the inventions claimed by Ericsson fell under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. In particular, Lava had pleaded in its…

April 12, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 733Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Website/Social Media and Accessibility Job Opening at BananaIP

BananaIP Counsels is actively seeking a dedicated individual for the role of Digital Engagement and Website Management Specialist. Continue Reading Website/Social Media and Accessibility Job Opening at BananaIP

April 10, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Job Postings 0Comment 971Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

A battle of SMITHS. Who owns the rights over the word 'SMITH'?

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

The Delhi High Court ruled in the case of A.O. Smith Corporation v. Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the defendants’ plea in a trademark infringement dispute. The court upheld A.O. Smith’s claim, restraining the defendants from using marks ‘STAR SMITH’ and ‘BLUE DIAMOND,’ citing potential confusion and dishonest adoption. Continue Reading A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

April 10, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 534Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

In a comprehensive and extensive judgment, the Delhi High Court has recently adjudicated in favor of Ericsson in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The dispute was initiated by Ericsson against Lava over eight patents integral to the standards for 2G, Edge, and 3G technology implementations. Continue Reading Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

April 8, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 944Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User

In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court settled a decades-long dispute over the ownership of the ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ trademark. Confirming PM Diesel’s prior and legitimate usage since 1963, the court dismissed Thukral Mechanical Works’ claim based on a later acquisition. This judgment underscores the critical importance of prior user rights in trademark disputes. Continue Reading Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User

April 5, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 558Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

This image contains the following text: Mitsui Chemicals Inc. vs Controller of Patents. Section 3(h), Procedural adherence and Patent refusal.

Delhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.

The Delhi High Court, in a recent decision dated February 23, 2024, in Mitsui Chemicals Inc. vs Controller of Patents, overturned the patent refusal order issued by the Controller in respect of patent application No. 3877/DELNP/200. This decision underscores the significance of procedural adherence, especially in handling of claims during the national phase entry of PCT applications. Background/Facts Mitsui Chemicals (the Appellant) filed a PCT national phase application titled "Plant Disease and Insect Damage Control Composition and Plant Disease and Insect…

April 3, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 735Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.

The Delhi High Court while deciding an application for interim injunction, held that the defendants did not infringe the plaintiff’s registered trademarks or pass off its products as those of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, instituted a civil suit, against Defendant 1, Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. ("SSPL"), and Defendant 2, Rachna Nitin Jindal, wife of Nitin Kumar Jindal, Manager of SSPL, based on its rights over the word mark “JINDAL” registered in classes 6 and 17. The Plaintiff’s case was that the…

March 28, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 648Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal

Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User

Delhi High Court reverses Patent refusal, Highlights significance of procedural adherence in handling claims of PCT National phase applications.

No monopoly rights over common surnames such as JINDAL, court dismisses injunction petition.

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us