Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan AttorneysAn ISO 9001 / 27001 certified law firm

IPR Articles

Search From Date To Date
Liabilities of an intermediary – The Indian perspective

By R. Parthasarathy & Godhuli Nanda

Electronic commerce or e-commerce, as is commonly known, is a transaction between the buyer and the seller which takes place online i.e. the purchase-sale of goods/services and not from physical brick and mortar shops, malls or kirana stores. The goods are sold through online platforms ...

Regularization of non-compliance with the Biological Diversity Act, 2002

By Dr. Deepti Malhotra & Dr. Malathi Lakshmikumaran

Biological diversity or biodiversity encompasses the entire species of plants, animals and microorganisms, including variability and their immense ecosystems[See Endnote 1]. India is one of the megadiverse countries with hotspots...

Scope of Section 3(i): An analysis on diagnostic methods of treatment

By Dr. Deepti Malhotra and Dr. Malathi Lakshmikumaran

TRIPS and methods of treatment

Patentability of methods of treatment is a contested subject matter worldwide. Article 27 of the World Trade Organisation’s Trade Related Aspects of Intellec...

Foreign filing license – Some issues

By Dipan Banerjee and Ankur Garg

Any person (inventor or applicant) who is an Indian resident, may wish to file a patent application (an application) in foreign countries due to various reasons, such as market potential, licensing opportunities, or other business policies. In such cases, the person may choose to either first file...

Standard Essential Patents - The Philips judgement & unanswered questions

By Sutapa Jana

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips), being one of the first Standard Essential Patent holders to initiate SEP litigation in India, has secured a major victory in what is believed to be the first ever ‘post-trial’ judgment in an SEP litigation. Though the judgment has been embraced with enthusiasm by ...

Goodwill and reputation of trademark in India - Worldwide prior use plays significant role

By Ashna Pruthi

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court vide its Order dated May 31, 2018 in the case of H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB & ANR v. HM Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors [IA No.7259/2016 in CS(COMM) No.707/2016, decided on 31-5-2018],  granted interim injunction to the plain...

Infringement or passing off in use of single colour as trademark

By Prince Bharti and Manoj Gupta

A Single Judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, vide its order dated May 25, 2018 summarily dismissed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off on the ground that no legal cause of action is made out by the Plaintiff as the registered trademark does not qualify to be a tradem...

Trends in applying Section 124 after ‘Patel Field Marshal’ judgement

By Sudarshan Singh Shekhawat

Section 124 [see End Note 1] of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (the Act) provides for the possibility of stay of a trademark infringement suit in case there is a challenge to the registered trademark which is the subject matter of the suit. The seemingly simple provision (including its predecessor Section 111 of the old 1958 ...

No Copyright in the Title of a Cinematographic Film

By Aditya Kaushik

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in February 2018, dealt with the concept of copyright protection of Title of Cinematographic Film in the case of M/s Lyca Productions v. J.Manimaran & Ors. ​[see Endnote No. 1] Appellant (M/s Lyca Productions) was restrained by an Order dated 19-2-2018 of the Single Judge i...

Protection of designs vis-à-vis newness and originality

By Godhuli Nanda

There is required sufficient novelty and originality for a completely new creation to come into existence as a design, and only thereafter would the design be said to be one which is capable of being protected as a design under the Indian Designs Act. It is also pertinent to note that the meaning of the words “novel or ...

Rights of author in literary work and producer of cinematograph film - Scope in context of “dubbing” and “remake”

By Vindhya S.Mani

In one of the first decisions of its kind, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Thiagarajan Kumararaja v. Capital Film Works (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.[See Endnote. 1]  firstly held that “dubbing” of a cinematograph film does not constitute t...

Scope of Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970 - An analysis

By Dr. Shravan S. Acharya and Dr. Prosenjit Chattopadhyay

Chapter II of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter the “Act”) enlists Inventions not patentable. Section 3(h) of the Act mandates that “a method of agriculture or horticulture” as non-patentable subject matter.


Page(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Please refer 'Archives' section to see older items.
Search People
Search People
Alphabetical by First Name
Enter at least a name or a keyword to search