Sound Board

Our thoughts and views on the practice of Intellectual Property in India and around the world.

In India, patent holders are required to submit a Statement of Working (Form 27) to demonstrate that the patented invention is being worked in India on a commercial scale. This requirement underscores the Indian patent regime's emphasis on ensuring that patents contribute to the country's industrial and economic development.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging the abandonment of a patent application for a "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching." The petitioner sought to restore the patent application on the account of misconduct and negligence by their Patent Agent which resulted in their patent application being abandoned. Justice Pratibha M. Singh who had presided over the case, emphasized the need for a Code of Conduct for Trademark and Patent Agents to…

Recently, we had a case wherein our Client’s IR application was provisionally refused by the Indian Registry due to the existence of an already registered identical mark. We are well aware that there are circumstances where identical/ similar marks are registered by honest users at times, however, this case seemed to be different. Upon perusal of the conflicting application, the mark (which was identical to our client’s, who is a leading business entity in foreign jurisdiction but was yet to…

As brands have begun to increasingly rely on digital platforms to reach and engage with their target audience, the risk of unauthorized use of trademarks and the sale of counterfeit products has also grown. Unauthorized pages and posts on social media can dilute a brand’s goodwill and reputation and confuse consumers. This holds especially true when it comes to counterfeit products sold on e-commerce platforms which not only pose legal risks but also threaten customer safety and satisfaction.…

A recent judgment in the case of Mountain Valley Spring India Pvt Ltd v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Pvt Ltd has reaffirmed several critical legal standards in trademark infringement and redefined the “customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection” test considering the evolution of customer awareness and brand identities. In this case, the Plaintiff, Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited, who are the owners of the luxury skincare brand Forest Essentials, sought for an ad interim…

The Delhi High Court recently issued a significant judgment regarding the sale and rebranding of refurbished goods, particularly addressing disputes between Seagate Technology LLC and WD Technologies (“original manufacturers / plaintiffs”) against several Indian entities involved in the rebranding and sale of refurbished Hard Disk Drives (HDDs), including Daichi International and a few others (“refurbishers / defendants”). This judgment [Seagate Technology LLC vs. Daichi International and…

This ruling certainly grants relief to parties whose rights may have been adversely affected due to a missed deadline caused by technological uncertainties. However, it also brings to light the limitations of using email communication for effecting service. The Court’s view that the document submitted by the Trademark Registry is insufficient to prove actual receipt of an email, has paved the way for parties to use the argument of non-receipt as a tactic to overcome missed deadlines. To put it…

Justice Anita Sumanth, presiding over the case, emphasized that the delay was only four days and that the Controller had not considered the application for condonation of delay under Rule 137. The court noted that normally it would not interfere in matters of condonation of delay as it falls under the discretion of the concerned authority. The extent of intervention would be limited to an examination of whether such discretion has been exercised in an appropriate manner. However, given the…

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vide notification dated March 15, 2024 has introduced the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, (hereinafter “new Rules”) in order to amend the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter “old Rules”). The new Rules aim to provide clarity and coherence in the certification process and hold significant implications for filmmakers, distributors, and audiences as well as align with contemporary standards and societal values.

In light of the above, a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v. Dabur India Ltd & Anr. has offered some clarity to the question surrounding extendibility of deadlines at the evidence stage of opposition proceedings. While deciding on whether deadlines at the evidence stage of opposition proceedings were mandatory or merely directory, it was observed that the use of terms like "one month aggregate" in Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules implied a mandatory time…