The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Visa International Ltd., quashing orders issued by Associate Managers who lacked the legal authority under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court emphasized the necessity of proper authorization for quasi-judicial functions within the Trademark Registry. Continue Reading Only Officers having Quasi Judicial Authority Can Pass Trademark Orders, says the Calcutta High Court
The Madras High Court recently ruled in favor of Prakash Ferrous Industries in a trademark dispute over the ‘TIRUMALA’ mark used on TMT steel bars, granting a permanent injunction against Mansarowar Ispat. Continue Reading Thou shall not ‘STEEL’ a trademark, says court
In an appeal decision, the Delhi High Court recently overturned the rejection of two patent applications filed by Ab Initio Technology LLC, concerning data processing methods. These applications, Nos. 6500/DELNP/2011 and 6501/DELNP/2011, were refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on the grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, as they were deemed to be computer programs per se, and for failing to meet the criteria for divisional applications under Section 16(1).
Ab Initio Technology…
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories by restraining Rebanta Healthcare from using the ‘REBAHEAL’ trademark. The court found that the use of the identical mark by Rebanta could lead to confusion and potential health risks, highlighting the importance of protecting trademark rights in the pharmaceutical industry. Continue Reading Rebanta Healthcare gets hurt in fight over the mark “REBAHEAL”
The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal order for the ‘DISPOWAY’ trademark after confirming that Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited did not receive the hearing notice. The court remanded the matter to the Registrar of Trademarks, directing the issuance of a fresh notice and restoration of the application. Continue Reading DISPOWAY Trademark Disposal Set Aside: Hearing Notice Not Received
The Madras High Court confirmed the Patent Office’s rejection of IIT Madras’s patent for a method of doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate. The Court agreed with the rejection based on Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, but noted procedural shortcomings in the handling of the case. Continue Reading A doped order on method of doping, court clarifies
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., overturning the Registrar’s decision and quashing the registration of a deceptively similar ‘HAATHI’ mark by Bicrampore Tea Estate. This ruling underscores the significance of consumer perception and the potential for deception in trademark disputes. Continue Reading Jumbo Tramples Haathi Trademark Registration
The Madras High Court has revoked the refusal of Green Cross’ patent application for a Hepatitis B immunoglobulin agent, citing errors in the Controller’s analysis. The court has remanded the matter to the patent office for a fresh examination, ordering a review of the claims within four months. Continue Reading Green Cross Crosses court’s bridge to win appeal
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has issued a directive for the re-validation of trademark applications processed by officers hired through the Quality Council of India. The process will involve a two-tier review system to ensure accuracy and compliance with current legal provisions, with a goal of processing 250 applications per day. Continue Reading Indian IP Office Orders Re-evaluation of Trademark Applications
The Gujarat High Court’s decision in the Unisn vs. Unison case provides critical insights into evaluating trademark infringement. The court emphasized a holistic view of trademarks, considering the distinctiveness of goods and services, thereby ruling out the likelihood of confusion. This case reinforces the importance of product differentiation in trademark disputes. Continue Reading Evaluating Trademark Infringement: Holistic View and Goods Differentiation to Determine Likelihood of Confusion