Madras High Court Archives | Page 3 of 5

Court Lifts injunction on Tractor-Forklift Design

The Madras High Court deliberated on whether a tractor fitted with a forklift can be considered a new vehicle and thus be eligible for design registration. The Court’s analysis focused on the novelty and innovation of the design, ultimately determining that such a combination was not new or original, leading to the vacation of an earlier injunction. Continue Reading Court Lifts injunction on Tractor-Forklift Design

June 28, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Industrial Designs, Intellectual Property 0Comment 400Views 1Like

ShareFacebook

Victory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s Refusal

The Madras High Court, in a decision dated March 19, 2024, set aside a patent refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in the case of a patent application filed by Novozymes A/S. This post summarizes the decision of the court in this case. Continue Reading Victory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s Refusal

May 27, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 650Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Madras High Court overturned the Indian Patent Office’s decision to reject Imclone’s patent application for a monoclonal antibody to treat metastatic bone cancer. The Court disagreed with the Patent Office’s view that the antibody was merely “discovered in nature” and not an invention. Continue Reading Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

May 6, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 629Views 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

Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

Kalyan Jewellers successfully defended its trademarks ‘Kalyan’ and ‘Kalyan Jewellers’ against cybersquatting through a recent Madras High Court ruling. The Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name “kalyanjewellers.com” to Kalyan Jewellers after the WIPO arbitration panel couldn’t decide on the case due to the requirement of proving bad faith. Continue Reading Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

March 5, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 698Views 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

Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

Learn how a system for concealing user addresses in online transactions was deemed patentable, distinguishing it from excluded “business methods.” Gain insights for navigating patent applications in the digital age. Continue Reading Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

February 26, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 405Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Protein-free foaming innovation revived! Madras High Court overturns patent refusal due to Controller’s failure to address key arguments and consider crucial differences from prior art. This judgment highlights the importance of thorough analysis and considering applicant submissions in patent decisions. Continue Reading Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

February 22, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 391Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Image accompanying blogpost on "Madras High court provides clarity on Proof of right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different."

Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different.

In this case, the Madras High Court sheds light on proving applicant’s right, emphasizing the difference between assignment and declaration dates. This case offers insights for smoother patent applications in India and is likely to provide much-needed clarity to Applicants and Controllers alike who often encounter the same or similar objections relating to proof of right under Section 7(2) and Rule 10 of the Patents Act. Continue Reading Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of…

February 21, 2024 BananaIP Reporter Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 670Views 0Like

ShareFacebook

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Court Lifts injunction on Tractor-Forklift Design

Victory for Novozymes: Madras High Court Overrules Patent Office’s Refusal

Engineered non-living substances are not excluded under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970.

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

Injunction against use of Kalyan and Kalyan Jewellers Trademarks

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

Is a system for ‘Selectively Displaying Physical Address’ unpatentable as a business method?

Refusal of patent application relating to ‘Soluble Foaming Composition’ set aside

Madras High Court provides clarity on Proof of Right, says date of assignment and date of declaration are different.

Connect with Us

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

Connect with us