+91 44 28120000

Call Us for an Appointment






IPR News



small judge gavel

On 5th April, 2021, the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021 abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and effectuated the change in the provisions concerning the impugned body in the Trade Marks Act 1999, The Patents Act, 1970, The Copyright Act, 1957[1] and The Geographical Indications of Goods (Forms & Making an Appeal and Fees Therefore) Rules, 2013....

Continue reading

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Opposing Party

Aparna Venkat Associate Surana & Surana International Attorneys The Learned Judge of the Bombay High Court, G.S. Patel has urged that the Advocates reconsider the manner in which they frame their prayers in a trademark infringement or passing off suit. In the said suit bearing Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 3761 of 2021, the Judge has granted an injunction and appointed a Receiver. It has further been ordered by the Judge that until the Receiver executes his commission the Defendant’s name will not be disclosed and also the original order will not be uploaded. Thus, the anonymity of the opposing party. The essence of the...

Continue reading

BigBasket vs. Daily Basket

BigBasket has recently sent a 'Cease and Desist Letter' to Daily Basket asserting infringement of their brand name. BigBasket claims to be the biggest online food and supermarket in India while Daily Basket professes to be a little bootstrapped, Coimbatore-based, two-man start up. Daily Basket is an on-the-web/ disconnected staple startup presently just serving in Coimbatore. The Cease and Desist Letter BigBasket in its 'Cease and Desist Letter' stated that "the simple notice or reference of a name containing "basket" in word or logo structure for any internet business and related items are similar to BigBasket and hence Daily Basket should not...

Continue reading

Are offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act & Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act Bailable or Non-Bailable?

In PiyushSubhashbhaiRanipa vs. The State of Maharashtra, which was decided on February 26, 2021, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has settled the law on whether offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, are bailable or non-bailable. Section 63 of the Copyright Act relates to the offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by the Act wherein if any person knowingly infringes or abets the infringement, such person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years. Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act...

Continue reading

Can you be any cooler than Willis Carrier

Wondering who Willis Carrier is and why you can’t be any cooler than him? Willis Carrier is an American inventor who designed the first modern air-conditioning system. As summer looms and temperatures have slowly but steadily begun to soar, Willis Carrier’s contribution to make our lives more tolerable cannot be ignored! It is interesting how the idea struck him – on a foggy morning, while waiting for his train, Carrier realised that he could control the humidity of an indoor space by passing air through water to create fog, thereby creating air with a specific amount of moisture. Using that...

Continue reading

Can the word ‘THE’ acquire trademark protection?

The Ohio State University from the state of Ohio filed a trademark application bearing the serial number 88571984 with the USPTO (United States Patents and Trademarks Office) in 2019 to seek protection of the word ‘THE’. The user date of the application dated back to the year 2005 and had been filed in respect of “Clothing, namely, t-shirts, baseball caps and hats” under Class 25. The trademark is that of a label which comprises the word ‘THE’ in bold letters and the logo Ohio State University beneath it. However, the process was off to a rocky start as the University had...

Continue reading

Whether the addition of “.com” to a generic term qualifies for trade mark protection?

In the year 2011, Booking.com, a travel and hotel accommodations company, filed four trade mark applications for Booking.com. The USPTO rejected the said applications on account of the mark being too generic, in the year 2016. The Lanham Act specifically prohibits the registration of generic trade marks. Generic trade marks are common terms used to name products or services, for example, a brand of shoes called "shoes". Generic trade marks describe a product and hence these marks do not qualify for any protection. However, drawing reference to the evidence presented before the lower Courts, it was observed that the consumers viewed...

Continue reading

Can the Registrar of Trade Marks pass a non speaking order without communicating the grounds for refusal?

Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr: The Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner), aggrieved by the non-speaking orders passed by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) while refusing registration of the trade mark applications, approached the Delhi High Court, contending that the said refusals were in violation of Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court analysed Section 18 and Rule 36 to arrive at a decision in the case: Section 18 deals with application made for the registration of a...

Continue reading