20 October

Sticky

IP NEWS WEEKLY UPDATE – 20 OCT 2021

Posted by Surana

Delhi High Court circulates Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules, 2021 for inputs from the members of the Bar The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court had announced the creation and functioning of a separate Intellectual Property Division which would solely deal with the IP matters in July, 2021. On 8 October, 2021, the Delhi HC had circulated the IPD Rules, 2021 among the members of the bar for their suggestions and recommendations. The IPD Rules, 2021 deals with the practice and procedure for the exercise of the original and appellate jurisdiction of IPAD and for other miscellaneous petitions arising out...

11 October

0 Comments

Sticky

IP NEWS WEEKLY UPDATE – 11 OCT 2021

Posted by Surana

in IPR News

Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2021 notified and has come into force The Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2021 has been notified by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade and has come into effect from 21 September, 2021. “Educational Institutions” have been inserted as a category of applicants under Rule 2 (ca). This amendment paves way to a benefit of 80% reduced fee for patent filing and prosecution for such applying educational institutions. This benefit was earlier available to educational institutions which were recognized and owned by the government only. Star Trek- Dr. Seuss Enterprise’s five years of legal battle concludes in a...

08 October

0 Comments

Sticky

IP NEWS WEEKLY UPDATE – 7 OCT 2021

Posted by Surana

in IPR News

Piaggio v. Peugot Piaggio v. Peugot The Tribunal Judiciaire of Paris and Tribunale of Milan have found the control system which enables a three-wheeler to tilt like a regular two-wheeler employed by Peugeot Metropolis (Mahindra Group) to be infringing Piaggio Group’s patent and has banned Peugeot Motorcycles from producing, promoting, marketing, importing, exporting, using and/or possessing any three-wheeled scooter employing Piaggio’s patented technology in France. The court also imposed a fine of 1.5 million euros (Rs 12.95 crores) in addition to other penalties.AI cannot be an inventor AI cannot be an inventor Judgment dated 21 September 2021 ([2021] EWCA Civ 1374), the Court of Appeal has...

21 September

0 Comments

Sticky

IP NEWS WEEKLY UPDATE – 21 SEP 2021

Posted by Surana

in IPR News

Protection of the Aaj Tak trademark Protection of the Aaj Tak trademark Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Living Media Limited, the parent company of the Aaj Tak brand and ordered Google and Facebook to block the four defendants and also extended its order to 25 different websites, carrying infringing brands. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait impleaded these 25 websites and the domain registrars, the order blocks in the interim the use of Aaj Tak Live, Aaj Tak IndiaNews, E-Aaj Tak. Trademark Ownership over Greek Alphabets Trademark Ownership over Greek Alphabets Affinity Client Services apparently hold trademarks in the UK over the...

06 September

0 Comments

Sticky

IP NEWS WEEKLY UPDATE – 6 SEP 2021

Posted by Surana

in IPR News

Zed Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hardhik Mukeshbhai Pansheriya The Plaintiff holds 18 registrations for the mark ‘BEARDO’ inclusive of Class 3. The Defendant holds registrations in Class 7 and 11 for the identical mark ‘BEARDO’ to which rectification proceedings are pending before the Trade Marks Registry. The Plaintiff has successfully satisfied the criteria envisaged under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by virtue of which an injunction order was passed restraining the Defendants from using the impugned mark as it is or in conjunction with any other figure or manner. The Delhi High Court further ordered the Defendants to...

31 August

0 Comments

Sticky

IP News Weekly Update – 31 Aug 2021

Posted by Surana

in IPR News

V Guard Industries Ltd. Vs. Sukan Raj Jain and Anr – Delhi High Court The Plaintiff, a proprietor from Kerala manufactures and markets electrical goods under the mark ‘V-Guard’ across the country and furthermore has a subordinate (supply) office in Delhi. The Plaintiff instituted a trademark infringement action before the Delhi High Court against the Defendant for using the mark ‘N-Guard’ with respect to machines electronics, electronic, electrical parts, etc. The Court has issued an ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendant. The Defendant challenged the territorial jurisdiction by stating that no cause of action arose within the Courts’ jurisdiction....

14 August

0 Comments

Sticky

IP News Weekly Update – 14 Aug 2021

Posted by Surana

in IPR News

Biscuit Battle Last year Britannia had taken ITC to court alleging that the latter’s product packaging “Sunfeast Farmlite 5-Seed Digestive” and “Sunfeast Farmlite Veda Digestive” were deceptively similar to Britannia products. Soon after the dispute, ITC modified its packaging and Britannia expressed that it had no objection to the use of the modified packaging by ITC. However, the Delhi High Court ruled that the disputed packages “cannot be called as deceptively similar” as the name of the product on the packages are abundantly clear. Regardless, Britannia subsequently gave up its claim for rendition of accounts, damages, etc. as it was personally...

10 August

0 Comments

Sticky

IP News Weekly Update – 26-31 July 2021

Posted by Surana

in IPR News

Trademark tiff on ‘Natural Ice creams’ The Plaintiff, Siddhant Icecreams LLP & Kamath Ourtimes Icecreams Pvt. Ltd. sued a Gujarat-based company and another for infringing the use of the term “Natural Ice Cream”. The Plaintiff is seeking damage and compensation of nearly 150 crore for infringement of its registered trademark that has been in widespread popular use since 1984. The Defendant also alleges long-standing yet subsequent use of its impugned trademark since 1992 and opposes the claims of the Plaintiff. The Bombay High Court held that Plaintiffs have a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and against...

28 July

0 Comments

Sticky

IP News Updates – July 28, 2021

Posted by Surana

in IPR News, Uncategorized

CJEU affirms Pirelli’s tyre groove trade mark The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has settled the long pending dispute between Pirelli & Yokohama as regards the validity of Pirelli’s tyre groove trade mark registered in Class 12 in respect of tyre products & related accessories. CJEU has affirmed the validity of the said trade mark based on the fact that the trade mark is in respect of a single groove which, by itself, is not capable of producing any technical result. Re-establishment of IPAB recommended by Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee on Commerce The parliamentary committee has recommended re-establishment of the IPAB...

09 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Quia Timet Action – Meaning and judicial developments regarding its scope

Posted by Surana

in SSIA

Owners of intellectual property (Trademarks, Copyright, Patent, Designs, etc.) must always be alert and ensure that their rights are not violated by any third party. Any form of intellectual property would be an asset and hold great commercial value to its owner in today’s competitive business environment. ...

IPR Tag

Explore About Us

CORPORATE OFFICE

NCR