Eashan Ghosh wrote a guest post on a recent decision of the Calcutta High Court in a GI and Certification TM infringement case filed by the Tea Board of India against ITC for use of ‘Darjeeling’ as part of the name of a refreshment lounge called the Darjeeling Lounge in one of its hotels. In his analysis of the decision, he focussed upon the interpretation of the Court with regard to limitation under Section 26(4) and passing off under Section 22 of the GI Act. He further delved into the interpretation of certificate trade mark rights under the Trade Marks Act.
We had another guest post by Sumit Sonkar on his observations on the First IP & Innovation Researchers of Asia Conference, which was recently held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on January 31 and February 1, 2019. In his post, he observes that the Conference was a significant opportunity for young scholars from developing countries to get exposure to the latest debates and ideas in IP law.
Pankhuri wrote a post on a recent decision of the Madras High Court, wherein it dismissed a writ petition challenging an IPAB order that had upheld a probiotic patent granted to Kibow Biotech for its product Renadyl. The Court examined its power under Article 226 and stated that since there was no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal while passing the impugned order, they had no grounds to intervene.
M/s. Khushi Ram Behari Lal v. M/s. Jaswant Singh Balwant Singh – Delhi High Court [January 21, 2019]
The dispute between the Parties arose on account of registration of a mark. The Petitioner intended to register the mark “TRAIN BRAND WITH DEVICE OF TRAIN” but the Respondent had already registered and was duly using the mark “TRAIN” in the business of selling rice. The Respondent thereby filed opposition proceedings against the Petitioner and the Registrar allowed such opposition proceedings. Aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar, the Petitioner approached the Intellectual Property Appellate Board claiming that the decision of the Registrar was wrong as many invoices of the Respondent had been forged. The Appellate Board noted that though many invoices appeared suspicious, the Respondent had been dealing in the business of rice and had opposed the Petitioner’s application in the first instance. The Court set aside the order of the Appellate Board on the ground that the Respondent had presented forged invoices in proving the use of its mark, a fact which could not be ignored. Moreover, the Court also stated that the Petitioner’s mark was a label mark and had been used uninterruptedly used for almost 22 years.
- Indian pharma lobby seeks removal of India from US patent violator list
- Skoda Auto India Settles Trademark Row With Monte Carlo, Relaunches Rapid
- Taxman wants to charge GST on trademark and logo use by subsidiaries