2014

Gati Ltd. v. Gati Dance Forum-Trademark infringement

/ By / Trademark

In the last week of February, the Delhi High Court passed its order in the case of M/s GATI Ltd. v. GATI DANCE FORUM which dealt primarily with the issue of an interim injunction in a suit for trademark infringement.  The plaintiff is a company providing cargo management services operating under the name ‘GATI Desk to Desk Cargo’ based in Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff which began operations in 1989 has specialized in point to point distribution of cargo services where the plaintiff picks up […]

Gati Ltd. v. Gati Dance Forum-Trademark infringement Read More »

The ‘Rise Prize’: The much-needed ‘million-dollar’ encouragement for Indian Innovators

/ By / Innovation, Patent

In a hugely welcome development, Mr. Anand Mahindra of the Mahindra group is offering a million dollar challenge to innovators who can provide solutions for two of India’s major problems- traffic stress and electricity shortages. The challenge is to build a driverless car for congested traffic and develop a solar DIY (Do-It-Yourself) kit for household needs. The prize money will be split 70:30 for these solutions respectively. This challenge is part of Mr. Mahindra’s inaugural ‘Rise Prize’ which is aimed

The ‘Rise Prize’: The much-needed ‘million-dollar’ encouragement for Indian Innovators Read More »

A Belated Weekly Review (17th February – 24th February)

/ By / Others

The last week did not see much action in the field of intellectual property rights in India. A quick recapitulation follows: In the beginning of the week, Swaraj had analysed the GIPC International IP Index 2014 (published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre). He concluded that the much touted GIPC IP Index is erroneous inasmuch as it is biased and employs flawed research methodology. He also points out that problematically, it is likely that this report

A Belated Weekly Review (17th February – 24th February) Read More »

UK Courts set aside £100,000 judgment against Indian law firm in professional negligence suit

/ By / Patent

In early 2013, Prashant had reported a default judgment of 100,000 pounds entered into by the London High Court against Fox Mandal in a suit filed by one of its former clients for professional negligence in a patent prosecution that had been handled by the firm. As reported by Bar & Bench, this verdict has now been set aside by the High Court itself and the Court of Appeal, England, this month, has refused permission for leave to appeal on

UK Courts set aside £100,000 judgment against Indian law firm in professional negligence suit Read More »

A flowery matter: Madras HC on the Orchid trademark dispute

/ By / Trademark

Background Litigation over the ‘orchid’ trademark between Kamat Hotels and The Royal Orchid Hotels  (‘ROH’) continues. This dispute has been covered by Prashant here and here. After losing at the IPAB, Kamat Hotels filed two writ petitions before the Madras HC. Without using flowery words, the Madras HC dismissed these petitions. Though this was a ‘writ petition’ filed under Article 226, it reads more like an appeal. As we know, Article 226 is an extraordinary remedy intended to be applied in exceptional

A flowery matter: Madras HC on the Orchid trademark dispute Read More »

Guest Post: A look at Software Patents – II

/ By / Patent

Punam Kadam continues her two part blog post here. You can view the first part of her post here. [You can also view our previous related posts here (Shamnad’s comments on the guidelines) and here (Aparajita’s post highlighting the feedback received on the draft IPO Guidelines)] A look at Software Patents – II Continuing from my previous post that looked at the patentability of software in various jurisdictions in the light of the distressing reactions from Software industry associations, this post seeks to anatomize the inadequacies

Guest Post: A look at Software Patents – II Read More »

Guest Post: A look at Software Patents – I

/ By / Patent

In this 2 part guest post, Punam Kadam takes a look at software patents by first examining basic principles and international treatment of software patents, and then goes on in her second post to suggest that the IPO has erroneously used some key terms in their draft guidelines. Punam Kadam is a research professional who has worked in Pharma and Agrochemicals Industry and currently working as a Patent Associate at Inttl Advocare. The views expressed are her personal views and

Guest Post: A look at Software Patents – I Read More »

Copyright to Effect Censorship?

/ By / Copyright

IPKat recently carried a post reporting that Spain was contemplating introducing an amendment in their laws to allow for press publishers to monetize their content for a fixed period of time. This might seem like an alarming development (more on that later on in the blog post) but IPKat reports that this has been tried by a number of other countries as well. These are Germany, Italy, Belgium and even France. We have reported earlier on this blog about the

Copyright to Effect Censorship? Read More »

‘Brahmos’ is a well-known Trademark: Delhi HC in Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd v. FIITJEE Ltd. and Anr

/ By / Trademark

The High Court of Delhi, on February 24th, granted an interim injunction in favour of ‘Brahmos Aerospace Ltd’ restraining FIIT JEE, an institute that offers training for competitive exams from using the name ‘Brahmos’. The decision was granted in Brahmos Aerospace’s favour mainly on the ground that Brahmos is a “Well-Known Trademark” and can therefore be protected even in relation to dissimilar services, under S.29(4) of the Trademarks Act. The Facts Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd is a Government Company set

‘Brahmos’ is a well-known Trademark: Delhi HC in Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd v. FIITJEE Ltd. and Anr Read More »

FRANDly Wars at Delhi HC: Ericsson cries foul play against Intex; CCI barred from adjudicating the dispute

/ By / Competition Law, Patent

In 2013, Intex filed a complaint against Ericsson with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) alleging abuse of dominance by the Ericsson whilst negotiating a Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) licensing agreement. Intex, an Indian mobile handset maker complained that the terms of the agreement were highly unfair and discriminatory, and in particular claimed that the royalty rates demanded by Ericsson were extremely high. The CCI made a prima facie determination of abuse of dominant position and ordered an investigation under Section 26

FRANDly Wars at Delhi HC: Ericsson cries foul play against Intex; CCI barred from adjudicating the dispute Read More »

Scroll to Top