Intellepedia | Page 11 of 293

Frivolous inventions and abstract theories – Delhi High Court refuses patent appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a patent application due to lack of novelty and a significant procedural delay of 701 days. The appellants, who had filed a patent application for black-colored wearables with claimed effects on human energy, failed to provide scientific evidence or technical merit. The court upheld the Indian Patent Office’s decision, emphasizing that abstract ideas are not patentable and reaffirming the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines for appeals.

“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.

Patent Abandonment Overturned: Delhi HC Rules on FER Miscommunication

The Delhi High Court set aside the deemed abandonment of Waterotor’s Indian patent application, citing miscommunication regarding the First Examination Report (FER). The Court ruled that the lack of timely FER receipt justified reinstatement, directing the Patent Office to restore the application’s status to “pending” and allow a response within four weeks.

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.

Counterfeit books sold on Amazon, Allahabad Law Agency obtains injunction

In Allahabad Law Agency v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction against online sellers distributing counterfeit copies of Law of Torts by Dr. R.K. Bangia. The Court found copyright and trademark infringement but declined to award damages, granting nominal costs of Rs. 15,000 to the Plaintiff.

Knowledge Theft : Property includes Intellectual Property, affirms Supreme court

The Supreme Court of India upheld the Bombay High Court’s interpretation that intellectual property, including research data, qualifies as ‘property’ under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This decision enables victims of caste-based atrocities to claim compensation for loss of intellectual assets. The ruling affirms the protection of knowledge-based assets and expands the legal definition of property under the Act.

Can you reuse a discarded bottle to refill and sell your own goods or products?

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of Mount Everest Breweries Ltd., prohibiting the reuse of embossed beer bottles. The decision upheld the Excise Commissioner’s order, stating that reusing marked bottles leads to consumer deception and violates intellectual property rights. The appeal overturned the previous order, reinforcing legal protections for trademarks in the beer industry.

Madras High Court Affirms Rejection of AI-Integrated Persona Patent

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a patent application for AI-integrated persona augmentation. The Court ruled that the invention lacked sufficient technical detail, inventive step, and patent-eligible subject matter under the Patents Act. It upheld the Controller’s decision, emphasizing the absence of tangible technical effects and clear disclosure requirements.

Trademark Licensing vs. Assignment: Madras HC on ROYALCHEF Dispute

The Madras High Court ruled that the licensing of the ROYALCHEF trademark does not restrict the licensor’s rights. In a dispute between Quality Chef Agro Foods and ADF Trading, the Court analyzed trademark ownership, assignment, and licensing agreements. It concluded that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no exclusive right to the mark and could not prevent the licensor from exporting goods under the same brand.