Madras High Court holds that not all inventions must yield physical products to be patentable
April 1, 2025PatentsMadras High Court
This decision reinforces that method or process claims are very much within the ambit of patentable subject matter under Indian patent law, provided they involve a technical application and are not mere abstract or mental acts. The judgment is also a reminder that patent refusals must be grounded in sound reasoning and should strictly adhere to procedural fairness, including giving applicants an opportunity to address all grounds of rejection. By setting aside the refusal and directing a fresh…
Putting bad faith to bed: Wakefit reclaims its domain
April 1, 2025Domain NamesDomain Name Disputes,domain squatting
In a recent decision under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP), Wakefit Innovations Pvt. Ltd., the Bengaluru-based D2C furniture and sleep solutions company, has successfully secured the transfer of the domain name wakefit.in. The arbitral award dated February 28, 2025, underscores the importance of accurate registrant information and reinforces that cybersquatting - even passive holding of infringing domains will not go unchecked.
Turning down the noise: Bose reclaims its .co.in domain
April 1, 2025Domain NamesDomain Name Disputes,domain squatting
In a significant decision under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP), Bose Corporation, the globally renowned manufacturer of high-end audio equipment, has successfully reclaimed the domain name boseindia.co.in.
Intellectual Property and Caste-Based Atrocities
March 19, 2025Intellectual Property Rights,Trademarks,Weekly (IP)DATE,Indiaintellectual property,ipr,caste-based attrocity,Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989,Section 173 of the CrPC
The Supreme Court recently upheld the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Kshipra Kamlesh Uke & Ors., involving compensation for intellectual property loss under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (“the Act”) and its associated Rules of 1995 (“the Rules”). While the Act is primarily intended to protect victims of atrocities by offering relief in cases of death, injury, or ‘damage to…
Delhi High Court Orders Amazon to Pay Rs. 339 Crore Damages: A Wake-Up Call for E-Commerce Giants on Counterfeit Goods
February 28, 2025Intellectual Property Rights,Trademarks,Weekly (IP)DATE,IndiaInfringement,Amazon,trademarks,intellectual property,ipr,ecommerce,intermediary liability,Information Technology Act
In a landmark ruling on February 25, 2025, the Delhi High court ordered Amazon to pay a hefty Rs. 339.25 crore in compensatory damages for the sale of counterfeit Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) goods on its platform. This case highlights the intersection of trademark law and e-commerce regulation, raising questions about the accountability of online marketplaces in protecting brand integrity. The Plaintiffs LifeStyle Equities C.V. and Lifestyle Licensing B, V, who are the rightful owners of the…
Trademark turbulence: Interglobe Aviation Vs Mahindra Electric Automobile Ltd
December 6, 2024Intellectual Property Rights,Trademarks,Weekly (IP)DATE,Indiatrademarks,ipr,Intellectual Property Rights,Indigo,Mahindra,6E trademark dispute
In a recent dispute between India’s largest airline, IndiGo, and automobile manufacturer Mahindra Electric, (Interglobe Aviation Vs Mahindra Electric Automobile Ltd, DHC - CS(COMM) 1073 / 2024) the issue surrounded the alpha numeral “6E”. For IndiGo, the 6E callsign has been an integral element of the official designator and a brand identifier for the past 18 years. IndiGo has extended the use of "6E" across various service offerings, such as 6E Prime, 6E Flex, 6E Link, and 6E Add-ons. Notably,…
Madras High Court quashes patent refusal: Upholds fairness and reasoned decision-making
November 22, 2024Intellectual Property Rights,PatentsPatent Office,Madras High Court
The appellants, Intervet International B.V. and Microbial Chemistry Research Foundation, filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs for refusing a patent application for solvated and non-solvated crystalline forms of 20,23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide. The invention was claimed to exhibit enhanced stability, economic significance, and technical advancements over prior art. The patent was refused under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970, which…
The Jiohotstar Domain saga
November 5, 2024Intellectual Property Rights,Trademarks,Domain Names,Weekly (IP)DATE,IndiaDomain Name,ipr,Intellectual Property Rights,jio,hotstar,domain squatting
The recent domain dispute involving jiohotstar.com has sparked a broader online discussion, highlighting a familiar narrative of “big corporation versus individual.” While some recognized the legal underpinnings of the issue, much of the debate centred on the perception that Reliance Jio should have accommodated the individual’s request. However, this situation exemplifies domain squatting—where individuals/company register internet domains containing well-known brand names or company…
Coexistence of Similar Pharmaceutical Names: An Analysis of Judicial Interpretation
November 1, 2024Intellectual Property Rights,Trademarks,Weekly (IP)DATE,Indiatrademarks,ipr,Intellectual Property Rights,Pharmaceutical names,distinctiveness,Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadia Pharmaceuticals Ltd,F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd,Schering Corporation case,SUN Pharma v. Hetero
Trademarks provide an advantage to businesses by distinguishing one’s product from others. However, it is common for infringers to use a similar mark in the industry and try to reap the goodwill that the initial user had secured over years. The pharma industry too faces the issue of similar marks being branded and sold. In this industry, the trademarks not only play a crucial role in distinguishing the marks but also ensures consumer safety. The recurring issue that we as trademark attorneys…
The Evolving Liability of Domain Name Registrars: Snapdeal Private Limited v. Godaddycom LLC and Ors.
October 29, 2024Intellectual Property Rights,Trademarks,Domain Names,Weekly (IP)DATEDomain Name Disputes,trademarks,ipr,Intellectual Property Rights,domain,intermediary liability,Snapdeal Private Limited v. Godaddycom LLC,unfair trade practices,safe habour protection,grievance mechanism
As the digital landscape evolves, the need to hold intermediaries to higher standards of accountability and duty of care has become increasingly pressing. This necessity arises from a growing trend in which intermediaries often overlook instances of infringement occurring on their platforms, to the detriment of the rights owners. With the rapid expansion of online services, intermediaries play a pivotal role and so, it is essential to implement stricter standards and practices that compel them…