Sound Board

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

The Appellants, Google India (P) Ltd., is a non-exclusive reseller of the Google Ads Programme in India, whereas the Respondents were DRS Logistics (P) Ltd., and Agarwal Packers and Movers (P) Ltd., who are leading packaging, moving and logistics service providers in the country.

The legal case of Syngenta Limited vs. Controller Of Patents And Designs revolves around the interpretation of Section 16(1) of the Indian Patents Act. This section pertains to the power of the Controller to make orders regarding the division of patent applications, specifically focusing on scenarios where a divisional application is filed to address objections raised by the Controller. The case raises questions about the requirement of containing claims relating to multiple inventions in the…

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has recently released The Draft Patents (Amendment) Rules 2023 for public comment. Interested parties can submit their feedback.

When a trademark application is filed and subsequently accepted by the Trademark Office, it doesn't mean an immediate registration. Instead, the accepted application is published in the Trademarks Journal for third parties, who might have concerns or disputes about the trademark, to come forward and oppose the application.

In a recent order passed on August 3, 2023, the Delhi HC in Ravi Manchanda v. Registrar of Trademarks rather scathingly pointed out a glaring error in an order passed by the Senior Examiner of Trademarks. In a case that was described as ‘sui-generis’, the Hon’ble Judge drew attention to a critical discrepancy – the absence of the impugned "order" in the communication sent to the concerned parties.

The case involved a dispute between Wipro Enterprises Ltd., the registered owner of the trademark "Chandrika," in respect of goods covered in class 3, and M/S Mariyas Soaps and Chemicals, the registered owner of the trademark "Chandra" in respect of goods covered in class 3. The court's ruling sheds light on the rights and limitations of registered trademark owners and the grounds for seeking relief in cases of similarity between registered marks.

In this article, we delve into the intricacies of the Calvin Klein case, exploring the Court's findings, and the implications of such actions on brand reputation and consumer trust. The plaintiff's trademark "Calvin Klein" was established and adopted in 1967, deriving its name from the founder. Since its inception, the plaintiff has extensively utilized both "Calvin Klein" and the abbreviated form "CK."

As patent attorneys, adhering to deadlines is pivotal for the success of a patent application. In India, two critical deadlines to bear in mind while prosecuting patent applications are those for filing a request for examination and responding to the first examination report.

Charter 4 Corp, the plaintiff, claimed to have adopted the 'Supreme' mark back in 1994 in the United States and had been using it in India since 2006, gaining popularity among Indian customers. The company boasted over 700 global registrations for the mark 'Supreme', and they had also filed applications for their 'Supreme' red-box device mark in India.

Kamdhenu Limited filed an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks, who had dismissed their application to have their trademark 'KAMDHENU' included in the "List of Well-Known Trademarks." The Registrar's rejection was the absence of an affidavit along with the supporting evidence to establish the well-known status.