29 October 2020
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) recently allowed registration of a mark observing that the Registrar had failed to take into account the arbitrary nature of the subject mark, failed to account for the extensive and continuous use of the subject mark and of its reputation and goodwill, etc.
28 October 2020
Observing that the trademark, ‘ALIBABA.COM’ had already acquired distinctiveness as on its filing date, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) has held that the mark was thus entitled to statutory protection under the Trademarks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’). The IPAB thus ordered that the application for the mark, ‘ALIBABA.COM,’ be accepted. It directed the Registrar to proceed further for advertisement in the Trademark Journal.
28 October 2020
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) has clarified on various issues relating to job work for the unit working under the scheme of Manufacturing and Other Operations in Warehouse (‘MOOW Scheme’) under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. The latest CBIC Circular No. 48/2020-Cus., dated October 27, 2020 also clarifies various issues in case where the job work activity is done by a unit working under the MOOW Scheme, for other units.
27 October 2020
In a recent order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’), the IPAB recapitulated the significance of the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice in judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative decisions. Rhe IPAB concluded that (i) the value of procedural fairness – as a statutory instrument and for social good – cannot be undermined; (ii) judicial and quasi-judicial authorities are subject to the principles of procedural fairness…
26 October 2020
The IPAB recently concluded that the Appellant’s marks, ‘GLOW & LOVELY’ and ‘GLOW & HANDSOME’ were inherently distinctive in nature. The IPAB emphasized that the marks were a unique combination of two common English words which when merged together resulted in composite marks yielding different and distinctive commercial impressions, as the words combined had distinct meanings by itself and one did not serve as an adjective to the other and were thus completely unconnected to each other.
22 October 2020
Setting aside the Registrar’s Order, the IPAB has recently allowed permitting the mark, ‘NOKIA’, to be declared as a well-known mark in India. The Appellate Board was of the view that the Order rejecting the application was passed without application of the mind and was against the law. The primary observation by the IPAB was that the Respondent-Registrar ought to have taken due care and consideration to the evidence submitted by the Appellant which could have prevented an appeal to the IPAB.
19 October 2020
In a recent update in the pharmaceutical sector, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board allowed the appeal filed by Pfizer Products Inc., an American multinational pharmaceutical corporation, under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the impugned order passed by the Controller of Patents & Designs on September 3, 2015, in respect of Patent Application No. 00991/MUMNP/2003 (‘IN’991’), and directed that the said application be granted by the Indian Patent Office (IPO).
16 October 2020
The Delhi High Court has passed a partly ex-parte ad-interim order on August 28, 2020 which was further modified on September 08, 2020 against certain defendants running deceptive websites, restraining them from the unauthorised use of the well-known trademark ‘AMUL’, as a prefix or suffix in their domain names.
Stamp duty on property lease – No difference between property owned by Government and private person
15 October 2020
The Bombay High Court has rejected the contention of the stamp duty authorities that as the leased property was owned by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, the market value of the said property cannot be decided and hence stamp duty needs to be paid on 100% of the amount paid for the lease instead of 90% of the market value as contemplated under Article 36(iv) of Schedule I to the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
Trademark infringement – Interlocutory injunction cannot be granted merely on basis of public interest
12 October 2020
In a case where by an ad interim Order injunction was granted against manufacture and sale of APIXABID product, and where the appeal against that ad interim order was pending in the Court, the Appellate Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has dismissed the interlocutory application by the defendant to permit them to sell 58,000 strips of the said medicine, manufactured by the applicant/defendant prior to the passing of the interim order.