Delhi High Court Archives | Page 11 of 17

Weekly Trademark Update Bulletin- PhonePe v MobilePe, Entrepreneur Magazine Vs. The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi and more

This week’s trademark updates from BananaIP Counsels include PhonePe v MobilePe, Entrepreneur Magazine vs. The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi, and The Battle of Sadda Pind. Read More Continue Reading Weekly Trademark Update Bulletin- PhonePe v MobilePe, Entrepreneur Magazine Vs. The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi and more

November 2, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Geographical Indications (GI), Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 1470Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Can you revive abandoned/lapsed patents and patent applications in India?

A patent attorney’s job includes tracking and managing deadlines and schedules for each patent case that he or she handles. Every Indian patent has at least ten (10) deadlines on average, and a patent attorney managing a portfolio of one hundred patents must keep track of at least one thousand dates. Read More Continue Reading Can you revive abandoned/lapsed patents and patent applications in India?

October 31, 2022 IP AI Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 2267Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Role of ‘Intent’ in Reviving lost Patents and Patent Applications in India

One of the critical parts of a patent attorney’s work is the management of timelines and deadlines relating to patent files being handled by her/him. On an average, each patent file in India has at least ten (10) deadlines, and if a patent attorney has a portfolio of 100 patents, she/he is looking at at least 1000 dates to track. Read More Continue Reading Role of ‘Intent’ in Reviving lost Patents and Patent Applications in India

October 31, 2022 Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1131Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates are as follows: A hot win for ‘Chaayos’. In the matter of SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT. LTD. v. MTRM GLOBAL PVT. LTD., the plaintiff, owner of the trademark- Chaayos had approached the Delhi High Court against the usage of the mark- Chaiops by the defendants. The suit was filed in September seeking permanent injunction and restraining unauthorised use of the mark by the defendants. The matter was referred to mediation last month which failed and further options to…

October 14, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Geographical Indications (GI), Intellectual Property 0Comment 1103Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

CASE BRIEF: FMC Corporation & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma Limited

Facts (with Timeline): i) FMC Corporation and FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd. (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) were assigned Indian Patent No. 298645 (suit patent/IN’645) titled “Method for preparing N-Phenylpyrazole-1-Carboxamides.” ii) The suit patent disclosed a novel method for preparing anthranilic diamide insecticide compounds. The claimed method involves combining: a carboxylic acid compound of Formula 2, an aniline compound of Formula 3, and a sulfonyl chloride, to prepare a compound of Formula 1 (Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR)). iii) The Plaintiffs brought…

October 3, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 4243Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates are as follows: Delhi High Court prevents website from using the trademark "Live Law" because of "intent to cash in on goodwill." The Delhi High Court has issued an ad interim injunction in favour of Live Law Media Private Limited, the business that owns the legal portal livelaw.in, preventing "Tiya Law Library" and a Haryana-based attorney from using the mark/name "Live Law" until further orders and ordering the internet service providers to block access to the website…

September 30, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Geographical Indications (GI), Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 1045Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates are as follows: CHAAYOS trademark infringement dispute referred to mediation Sunshine Teahouse Private Limited had filed an infringement suit against the CHAIOPS café. Sunshine claimed that the Defendant’s brand name CHAIOPS was infringing upon their mark CHAAYOS. The Delhi High Court noted that there were no similarities between the device and logo of the two parties and that there existed only phonetic similarity between the two. Hence, stating the possibility of an amicable settlement, the Delhi High…

September 16, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Geographical Indications (GI), Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 923Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Weekly Trademark Updates

This week’s trademark updates are as follows: Kashmir seeks to add more products to its GI list Kashmir seeks to obtain the GI tag for five of its crafts: Kashmir Namda, Wagguv, Shikara, Gabba and Kashmir Willow Bat. The Director of the Handicrafts & Handloom Kashmir had an extensive discussion with the authorities of Intellectual Property India, Chennai and requested them to accelerate the process of registration, “The dossier for registration of these crafts has already been submitted to the Intellectual…

September 9, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Geographical Indications (GI), Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 972Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

In a recent case involving Gogoro Inc, the Delhi High Court remanded a patent decision back to the patent office on the ground that the order was unreasoned. The Controller of Patents in the case rejected the patent application filed by Gogoro Inc relating to a power charging system on the ground that it lacked inventive step. The Controller cited three prior art references but failed to explain how a person skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed…

August 29, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1383Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

CASE BRIEF : Osram GmbH & Anr. Vs. Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.

Facts Plaintiffs, M/s Osram GmbH and Osram Lighting Private Limited [“OLPL”] filed a suit against Mr. Tejmeet Singh Sethi and Mr. Hartej Singh Sethi (Defendants) claiming their rights in the registered Trademark “OSRAM”. This mark was adopted by OLPL internationally in 1906 and later registered in India in 1945 by General Electric Company Limited. Plaintiffs were engaged in manufacturing a range of products comprising Lumilux Plus Fluorescent Lamps, CFL lamps and other related products. Plaintiffs found that Defendants, who were…

August 25, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 1309Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Weekly Trademark Update Bulletin- PhonePe v MobilePe, Entrepreneur Magazine Vs. The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi and more

Can you revive abandoned/lapsed patents and patent applications in India?

Role of ‘Intent’ in Reviving lost Patents and Patent Applications in India

Weekly Trademark Updates

CASE BRIEF: FMC Corporation & Ors. vs. Natco Pharma Limited

Weekly Trademark Updates

Weekly Trademark Updates

Without Proper Inventive Step Analysis, Patent Office’s Order is Unreasoned – Says Delhi High Court

CASE BRIEF : Osram GmbH & Anr. Vs. Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us