Case Reviews - Intellepedia

Hybrid Cell Inventions: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act Does Not Apply

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld an appeal filed by BTS Research International Pty Ltd (“BTS”) challenging the rejection by the Assistant...

ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro upheld

The Delhi High Court upheld ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro, restraining the company from using the trademark ‘POWRNYM.’ The Court ruled that the mark was deceptively similar to ITC’s ‘NIMYLE’ and ‘JOR-POWR,’ violating trademark rights. The judgment emphasized that contractual obligations and trade dress similarities must be strictly adhered to in trademark disputes.

Patentability vs. Procedure: Finding the Right Balance during patent examinations

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Arcturus Therapeutics, overturning the Controller’s rejection of its patent application on procedural grounds. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance should not override substantive examination, directing the Patent Office to reassess the application on its merits.

Madras High Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Suit, Allows Coexistence of Technologies

The Madras High Court ruled on a patent infringement dispute involving Arumugam Rajendra Babu and Ashok Leyland over battery-swapping technology. The Court found no infringement and dismissed both the suit and counterclaims, allowing both parties to coexist. The ruling addressed prior art, novelty, and the scope of patent protection in the electric vehicle sector.

The Battle for Respect continues: Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial

The Delhi High Court addressed the appeals in the Sammaan Capital v. Svamaan Financial trademark dispute. The case involved phonetic similarity, consumer confusion, and corporate branding rights. The Court maintained the status quo, requiring disclaimers in advertisements and setting a final hearing for April 2025.

Amazon Ordered to Pay ₹336 Crore in Damages for Willful Trademark Infringement

The Delhi High Court has ordered Amazon Technologies, Inc. to pay ₹336 crore in damages for willful trademark infringement of the Beverly Hills Polo Club logo. The ruling also includes ₹3.23 crore in litigation costs and a permanent injunction against Amazon. The case, filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Lifestyle Licensing B.V., highlights Amazon’s liability in unauthorized brand usage.

Thomson Reuters vs ROSS Intelligence : Does training AI models amount to fair use?

The US District Court for Delaware ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters, finding that ROSS Intelligence infringed Westlaw’s copyrights by using its headnotes and editorial content for AI training. The Court rejected ROSS’s fair use defense, emphasizing market harm and the need for AI developers to license copyrighted materials. While granting partial summary judgment to Thomson Reuters, the Court left certain copyright expiration claims for jury determination. This decision reinforces copyright protections in legal research and sets a precedent for AI-related copyright disputes.

“DREAM FREEDOM” Trademark removed from register for Deceptive Similarity

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. in a trademark rectification petition, directing the removal of the “DREAM FREEDOM” mark from the Register of Trade Marks. The court found that the respondent had deceptively adopted the mark and trade dress of Gemini’s “FREEDOM” brand, leading to potential consumer confusion. The ruling reinforced the principles of prior use and deceptive similarity in trademark law.

A battle for respect : Svamaan Financial Takes on Sammaan Capital in Trademark case

In a significant trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Svamaan Financial Services, granting an interim injunction against Sammaan Capital Limited and its affiliates. The Court found that the defendants’ marks were deceptively similar to Svamaan, potentially misleading consumers. The ruling reinforces the importance of brand identity and legal recourse in financial services.

Reasoned orders are a necessity in patent refusals, Madras HC reiterates

The Madras High Court overturned a patent refusal in Signal Pharmaceuticals vs. Deputy Controller of Patents, citing a lack of reasoning in the rejection order. The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to address the applicant’s arguments, disregarded amended claims, and provided no justification for the refusal under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration, reinforcing the necessity of well-reasoned patent orders.

Category: Case Reviews