Author name: Aparajita Lath

Aparajita is an Assistant Professor at the National Law School of India, Bangalore. She graduated from the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata and Harvard Law School (LL.M). She has worked at AZB & Partners and Trilegal. She was also a Student Fellow at the Petrie-Flom Centre at Harvard Law School.

Interplay between S. 29(4) and 29(5) of the TM Act : Smile at the Perils Past?

/ By / Trademark

We have for our readers an insightful post by Jasneet Kaur on the interplay between Section 29(4) and Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in light of the diverenging views taken in the cases of Cipla Limited v. Cipla Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2016) and Raymond Limited v. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (2010), ultimately leading to a referral to a larger bench. Jasneet is an independent legal practitioner with extensive experience in trade mark law, having worked with the IPR divisions […]

Interplay between S. 29(4) and 29(5) of the TM Act : Smile at the Perils Past? Read More »

Epic secrets untold: TCS told?

/ By / Others, Trade Secret

Recently, a US jury found Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Tata America International Corp guilty of stealing trade secrets and confidential information from Epic Systems, an American company. The amount of damages, awarded was a whopping $940 million, including $700 million as punitive damage. Epic Systems is a Wisconsin based company and is a leading provider of software to the healthcare industry.  Epic maintains a web portal called the “UserWeb,” which contains information regarding its products, training material and other

Epic secrets untold: TCS told? Read More »

Essel Propack v. Essel Kitchenware (Bombay HC): Wilful delay in taking action against trademark infringement may amount to acquiescence

/ By / Trademark

 As the law stands, delay on part of the defendant, attempting to dislodge a suit for infringement, and systemic delays inherent in the judicial system, cannot be used against a plaintiff who is entitled to interim relief. Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 such as Section 9A as well as section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, embody this principle. An interim injunction can therefore be granted despite the existence of an application challenging jurisdiction or an application for

Essel Propack v. Essel Kitchenware (Bombay HC): Wilful delay in taking action against trademark infringement may amount to acquiescence Read More »

TMR Delhi: Notice on mediation/conciliation for pending opposition/rectifications

/ By / Others, Trademark

“The notion that ordinary people want black-robed judges and well dressed lawyers and fine courtrooms as settings to resolve their disputes is not correct. People with problems, like people with pains, want relief, and they want it as quickly and inexpensively as possible.” (J. Warren Burger) The situation at the five Trade Mark Registries appears to be far from ensuring speedy and effective relief to trademark applicants/opponents/registrants. As of 2012, as detailed by Prashant Reddy in his blog post here,

TMR Delhi: Notice on mediation/conciliation for pending opposition/rectifications Read More »

Delhi HC: Pending IPR cases to heard by Commercial Divisions of High Court – irrespective of value

/ By / Others

A Single Judge of the Delhi HC in Guinness World Record and Ors v. Sababbi and Ors, recently decided the issue of whether IPR cases below Rs. 1 crore can be transferred to jurisdictional district courts or whether they must be tried by Commercial Divisions of the High Court. The Court concluded that in light of the language used in the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act,

Delhi HC: Pending IPR cases to heard by Commercial Divisions of High Court – irrespective of value Read More »

Full Bench Delhi HC: No prior permission from court to initiate rectification proceedings – Section 124

/ By / Trademark

Section number ‘124’ seems to the most trending section number this month in India – from passionate debates over the highly controversial section 124A of the Indian Penal Code splashed all over the news, we have for our readers a slightly more tedious debate over section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. A full bench of the Delhi High Court in Data Infosys v. Infosys Technologies held that prior permission of the Court is not necessary under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of

Full Bench Delhi HC: No prior permission from court to initiate rectification proceedings – Section 124 Read More »

IPO: CRIs guidelines kept in abeyance till contentious issues resolved

/ By / Patent

The Indian Patent Office (IPO) has issued an office order on December 14, 2015 stating that the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRls) issued on August 21, 2025 will be kept in abeyance till discussions with stakeholders are complete and contentious issues are resolved. This order seems to have been issued in light of several representations that were received regarding the scope and interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970 adopted by the 2015 guidelines. Till

IPO: CRIs guidelines kept in abeyance till contentious issues resolved Read More »

Transfer of IPR cases stayed by the Delhi High Court

/ By / Others

Two writ petitions (filed by Vifor International Limited and Asian Patent Association (Indian Group) have been filed against the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court’s order dated 24.11.2015 with effect from 26.10.2015. On December 3, 2015 a division bench of the Delhi High Court held that the proviso to section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Ordinance/Ordinance”) requires consideration but until the next date of hearing (January

Transfer of IPR cases stayed by the Delhi High Court Read More »

Supreme Court says NO: Trademark registration for names of holy books

/ By / Trademark

In the present case (Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006, Supreme Court), the appellant had applied for registration of the mark “Ramayan” with the device of a crown in relation to incense sticks and perfumeries (class 3). This application was challenged by the respondent whose main contention was that since the mark was a name of a religious book, no single trader could claim exclusivity over it. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks had held that this mark was capable of distinguishing

Supreme Court says NO: Trademark registration for names of holy books Read More »

Writ petition filed against transfer of IP cases

/ By / Others

We recently carried a post on the Draft Trademark Rules (Amendment) 2015 here. While the rules are still in a draft stage and open to comments, we are given to believe that a writ petition has been filed against these draft rules before the Delhi High Court in WP 11043/2015. No interim orders have been passed as yet. We would appreciate if our readers could share a copy of the petition with us. [Clarification: This is to clarify that the writ

Writ petition filed against transfer of IP cases Read More »

Scroll to Top