Filing a suit in Delhi could get 10 times more expensive
September 7, 2015Intellectual Property RightsNews
The Indian Parliament on August 6th 2015 passed the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 which was published on August 10, 2015. The Act is rather short and contains two changes – a) that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court would be raised from 20 Lakhs (approx. USD 30,000) to 2 crores (approx. USD 300,000) and b) that cases which were already pending with the Delhi High Court may be sent down to the subordinate Courts. This tenfold increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction was…
Bata sho(e)s away Vitaflex – Delhi HC grants injunction against groundless threats
September 4, 2015TrademarksCase Study,Infringement
The phrase “I’ll sue you” is one that many people love to use, without actually giving too much thought to whether legal action can in fact be taken and if so, whether it’ll be maintainable in a Court of Law. Lawyers take it a step further (in an attempt to make their client’s happy) by telling the other party that legal action will be taken against them if they do not comply or do what is necessary to be done. As a lawyer, it is pertinent to make sure your client is in the clear before…
3D Printing and Intellectual Property
August 21, 2015Intellectual Property Rights
Rapid prototyping, or 3D printing as it is called today was a method to create prototypes in industries before actual products were manufactured. It was both cost-effective and also a good method of determining if there were any defects before actually manufacturing the actual product. Technology advanced and times changed; 3D printing is now used to create anything and everything, including low-cost prosthetic limbs, skin and bones and many more such imaginable things! 3D printing technology…
Class of purchasers and trademark infringement
The Gujarat High Court in a recent case has reaffirmed that trade channels, class of purchasers, the extent of reputation of the parties and all the other relevant factors play a crucial role in determining whether there has been an infringement or not. The decision was the result of taking into consideration the following facts;