case review Archives

Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.

The Delhi High Court in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma addressed a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the anti-cancer drug Olaparib. To counter a patent infringement claim, the defendant needs to raise a plausible challenge to the patent’s validity. Patent coverage (what the patent protects) is distinct from the specific details disclosed in the patent document. This case involved a species patent (Olaparib) claimed within the scope of a broader genus patent. Continue Reading Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case…

March 15, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1119Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

The words ‘KONDRU’ and ‘LOBAN’ are Publici Juris, says the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court ruled that common words like “KONDRU” and “LOBAN” in the context of ayurvedic products cannot be exclusively trademarked. This decision highlights the importance of distinctiveness in trademark registration. Continue Reading The words ‘KONDRU’ and ‘LOBAN’ are Publici Juris, says the Delhi High Court

March 15, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property 0Comment 510Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

The changing dynamics of Infringement, Stay of Suit and damages in Trademark Cases

This blog post summarizes four recent trademark cases from various High Courts across India, and provides important takeaways relating to trademarks. In one of the cases, the Karnataka High Court pointed out that a trademark infringement suit can be stayed if a rectification is pending against the same trademark, although it was filed by another party. In another suit, the Delhi High Court, allowed the Defendant in the suit to conduct business under a modified name during the pendency of…

March 14, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 799Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.

The Delhi High Court recently highlighted the importance of clear and detailed reasoning in patent office rejections. In this case of Calm Water Therapeutics LLC’s patent application, the court found the initial rejection order by the patent office to be flawed as the revised claim was not considered and no detailed explanation was provided in the rejection. The court emphasized the need for the Patent Office to provide clear explanations and conduct thorough examinations before rejecting applications. Continue Reading Patent…

March 12, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 444Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”

Delhi High Court recently ruled in favour of Sterling Agro Industries, protecting their “NOVA” trademark for dairy products from a deceptively similar mark “NOVYA” used by ASR Trading Company. The Court noted the similarity in marks and packaging, the abandoned trademark application by ASR, and their its to prove otherwise, leading to a permanent injunction and penalty against the defendant. Continue Reading Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”

March 11, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 486Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) must clearly and unambiguously articulate objections to patent applications. This case involved Microsoft’s patent application for “Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves,” which was rejected by the IPO for lacking inventive step and violating disclosure requirements. The Court found the IPO’s objections to be ambiguous and procedurally irregular, thereby stressing on fair hearings and proper communication during the patent examination process. Continue Reading Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in…

March 8, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 372Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

The Madras High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that rejected Microsoft’s patent application for “Message Communication of Sensor and other Data.” The Court clarified that the “person skilled in the art” (PSITA) used to assess the inventive step is not omniscient and cannot be presumed to possess the inventive solution claimed in the patent. Continue Reading PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

March 6, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 569Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

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 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 630Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

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 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 391Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

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 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 547Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.

The words ‘KONDRU’ and ‘LOBAN’ are Publici Juris, says the Delhi High Court

The changing dynamics of Infringement, Stay of Suit and damages in Trademark Cases

Patent refusals: The need for clarity and details beyond mere objections.

Use of mark “NOVYA” for selling ‘Ghee’ amounts to passing off and infringement of the mark “NOVA”

Objections regarding insufficiency of disclosure in patent applications must be clear and unambiguous

PSITA is not omniscient, says Madras High Court. Overturns refusal order in favour of Microsoft.

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

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

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

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us