Recently, Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in favour of Philips in the consolidated matters namely Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors.
Standard Essential Patents - The Philips judgement & unanswered questions By Sutapa Jana Recently, Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in favour of Philips in t
Delhi High Court recently granted interim injunction to the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from using the trade mark or the trade name ‘HM Megabrands’.
Goodwill and reputation of trademark in India - Worldwide prior use plays significant role By Ashna Pruthi Delhi High Cour
Last month Delhi High Court held that use of a single colour as against a combination of colours does not qualify as a ‘mark’ under Section 2(1)(m) and as a ‘trademark’ under Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trademark Act.
Infringement or passing off in use of single colour as trademark By Prince Bharti and Manoj Gupta Last month Delhi High Court held that use of a single colour as
The Division Bench of Madras High Court has reversed the findings of the Single Judge and set aside the interim injunction order after holding that there cannot be any copyright in the title of the cinematograph film or any other copyrightable subject matter.
Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (the Act) provides for a 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.
A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on January 8, 2018 has held that unless a design is not significantly distinguishable from the known designs or combination of designs, then such a design is not entitled to registration.
Madras High Court has recently held that “dubbing” of a cinematograph film does not constitute translation and instead falls within the ambit of the expression ‘communication to the public’.
Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970 mandates “a method of agriculture or horticulture” as non-patentable subject matter.