Author name: Mathews P. George

Mathews is a graduate of West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. He pursued LLM in 'IP and Competition Law' from the Munich Intellectual Property Law Centre (a joint collaboration of Max Plank Institute for Innovation and Competition, University of Augsburg, Technical University of Munich and George Washington University, Washington). His areas of practice include Technology Law in general (IPR, Competition Law, Data Protection Law etc) Corporate Law, Contract Law and Public Law (Constitutional Law and Criminal Law). He practises law and policy at both national and international levels. Presently, he is in Kerala. In addition to litigation before various courts in Kerala, he is also involved in various national and international policy and academic initiatives.

Ulm University v. Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs: Madras High Court quashes unreasoned order of Patent Office

/ By / Patent

The Madras High Court, vide judgement dated 3 July 2024 in University of Ulm v. Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs, came down heavily on the IPO for its shoddy order rejecting the patent application filed by the appellant. The judgment raises serious concerns regarding the quality of functioning of the patent office. Facts In the given case, the University of Ulm (Germany) filed a patent application (Application No.645/CHENP/2011 filed on 31.01.2011) concerning use of Opioids or Opioid Mimetics for the Treatment […]

Ulm University v. Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs: Madras High Court quashes unreasoned order of Patent Office Read More »

Delhi HC in Zed Lifestyle Pvt Ltd. V. Hardik Mukeshbhai Pansheriya and Ors – a case of TM infringement and Intermediary Liability

/ By / Trademark

Overview of the Case The plaintiff filed an infringement suit against the defendants from using any mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s word and device mark “BEARDO”. The Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction dated 4 May 2021. The Court directed Amazon (the defendant No. 3) to remove the products of Defendants 1 and 2 from the “BEARDO STORE” webpage. The defendants 1 and 2 did not appear and the Court granted a permanent injunction

Delhi HC in Zed Lifestyle Pvt Ltd. V. Hardik Mukeshbhai Pansheriya and Ors – a case of TM infringement and Intermediary Liability Read More »

Analysis of February 2024 Delhi High Court Judgment in InterDigital v. Oppo – II

/ By / Patent

Bank Guarantee In the given case, the Court refused to accept the bank guarantee issued by HSBC-Paris – since it does not fall within the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court. HSBC-India declined to confirm the bank guarantee citing that HSBC-India and HSBC-Paris are technically two different entities (para 22). My understanding is, the guarantee issued by HSBC-Paris was meant to secure the counter-offer made by the defendants in the global licensing negotiations. It is also irrevocable and unconditional. It can

Analysis of February 2024 Delhi High Court Judgment in InterDigital v. Oppo – II Read More »

Analysis of February 2024 Delhi High Court Judgment in InterDigital v. Oppo – I

/ By / Patent

I provided an overview of the 21 February 2024 Delhi High Court judgment in the earlier post. I will analyse the judgment in this series. Broadly speaking, I am unable to agree with the concept of providing an interim deposit when there is a clear timeline in place for completing the trial. The award of interim deposit, when the Court has not even conducted a prima facie review of the case, is counter-intuitive.   I pose questions (rather than offer

Analysis of February 2024 Delhi High Court Judgment in InterDigital v. Oppo – I Read More »

SpicyIP Tibdit: Delhi High Court directs Oppo to make interim deposit in InterDigital v. Oppo proceedings

/ By / Patent

By judgment dated 21 February 2024, the Delhi High Court ordered Oppo to deposit an undisclosed sum as pro tem deposit (interim deposit) with the Registry . The Court imposed a cost of  INR 5,00, 000 /- upon Oppo for delaying the proceedings. The Court directed that the trial should conclude in 2024 itself. If the trial is not concluded within this time period, Oppo should deposit an additional sum. I shall discuss this judgment in detail in the later

SpicyIP Tibdit: Delhi High Court directs Oppo to make interim deposit in InterDigital v. Oppo proceedings Read More »

Cybersquatting: Delhi HC on Infiniti Retail Limited v. M/S Croma – Share & Ors.

/ By / Others

The Delhi High Court granted ex parte permanent injunction against the defendant entities which were misusing Tata’s “Croma” for fraudulent practices. Facts Infiniti Retail Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Sons, is the registered owner of “Croma”. The retail chain “Croma”, which was launched in 2006,  offers a wide range of retail products ranging from electronic products to kitchen appliances. The Trademarks Registry declared “Croma” to be a well-known mark on 24 February 2020. The plaintiff approached the Delhi

Cybersquatting: Delhi HC on Infiniti Retail Limited v. M/S Croma – Share & Ors. Read More »

Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Others : Delhi High Court cautions against the tendency to monopolise common words as trademarks

/ By / Others

The Delhi High Court, vide Order dated 11 December 2023, declined to grant the prayer of plaintiff (that uses the word mark “Institute of Directors”) to restrain the defendant from using the mark “Directors’ Institute”. Facts The petitioner registered its word mark “Institute of Directors” under the classes 16, 35 and 41. The plaintiff used the mark for running an institute, conducting events, networking and other associated activities.   The petitioner sought interim injunction against the defendant’s usage of “Directors’

Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Others : Delhi High Court cautions against the tendency to monopolise common words as trademarks Read More »

Delhi High Court grants injunction against ‘dialmytrip’ in MakeMyTrip India Private Limited v. Dialmytrip Tech Private Limited

/ By / Trademark

Image from here The High Court of Delhi, by its interim ex-parte order dated 21 November 2023, granted the prayer of ‘makemytrip’ and issued interim injunction against the mark ‘dialmytrip’.  I shall provide an overview of the order and offer comments in this post. Facts The petitioner, MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd, filed an injunction suit against the defendant, Dialmytrip Tech Pvt. Ltd, against the mark ‘dialmytrip’ and the domain names ‘www.dialmytrip.com’ and ‘www.dmtgroup.in’. The petitioner argued that: Judgment The Court

Delhi High Court grants injunction against ‘dialmytrip’ in MakeMyTrip India Private Limited v. Dialmytrip Tech Private Limited Read More »

Timelines under Rule 138 of Patent Rules are to be interpreted strictly and there cannot be any leeway under Rule 49.6 of PCT Regulations, says Delhi High Court

/ By / Others

In Humanity Life Extension LLC v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court refused to read Rule 49.6 of the Patents Cooperation Treaty Regulations (a provision that provides for condonation of delay by a period of one month with respect to the submission of national phase patent application) in the petitioner’s favour. The Controller of Patents had earlier declined to entertain the petitioner’s national phase application on the ground that it breached the statutory deadlines set out in the amended

Timelines under Rule 138 of Patent Rules are to be interpreted strictly and there cannot be any leeway under Rule 49.6 of PCT Regulations, says Delhi High Court Read More »

High Court cannot sit in appeal under Section 91 of the TM Act against the administrative panel decision of WIPO, says Delhi High Court

/ By / Others

The Delhi High Court, by order dated 19 July 2023 in Ashwa Ghosh v Vizrt Ag and Others, held that the High Court cannot hear appeal under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act against the decision of the WIPO Administrative Panel. Section 91 provides for appeal to the High Court against the order or decision of the Registrar of Trademarks. In the given case, the High Court refused to invoke Section 91 on the ground that the Administrative Panel of

High Court cannot sit in appeal under Section 91 of the TM Act against the administrative panel decision of WIPO, says Delhi High Court Read More »

Scroll to Top