Intellectual Property Rights
Understanding well-known trademarks application in India
In 1977, the Whirlpool Corporation (hereinafter, “Whirlpool Corp.”) failed to renew their trademark ‘WHIRLPOOL’ in India, causing the registration to expire. While Whirlpool Corp. had been using its trademark since 1937, and secured registration of their trademark in India on 1956, however, their…
Use of a trademark as keyword in Google’s Ad Programme amounts to Use and Constitutes Infringement - Delhi High Court
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. This case, Google…
Interpretation of Section 16(1) of the Indian Patents Act in Syngenta Limited vs. Controller of Patents and Designs
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…
Summary and Analysis of The Draft Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2023
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has recently released The Draft Patents (Amendment) Rules 2023 for public comment. Interested parties can submit their feedback. Key Proposed Amendments: Frequency of Working Statement Submission: Current Rule: Annually (every financial year). Proposed Change:…
Service of notice is completed when it is received by the party, not as soon as it is sent by the Trade mark office
Ramya S.Moorthy vs. the Registrar of Trade Marks 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…
A judicial lens on controversial IP realities in India
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…
Can't sue for trademark infringement, but passing off remains an option if trademarks of both parties are registered rules Kerala High Court
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…
Trademark Infringement and Unfair Trade Practices: The Calvin Klein Case
In this article, we delve into the intricacies of the Calvin Klein case, ( COTY GERMANY GMBH Vs XERYUS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ) exploring the Court's findings, and the implications of such actions on brand reputation and consumer trust. The plaintiff's trademark "Calvin Klein" was…
Restoring Patent Applications: Indian Courts' Stance on missing of deadlines to request examination or respond to examination reports
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. Presently, while a…
Delhi High Court declares Cult Streetwear Brand 'Supreme' red-box device mark as a Well-Known Trademark in India
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…