Author name: Namratha Murugeshan

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi HC passes ex parte injunction in favour of Glenmark in ‘TELMA / TELMA-AM’ counterfeiting claim

/ By / Drug Regulation, Trademark

The Delhi High Court passed an ex parte injunction in the matter of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals vs Sanjeevni Medicos And Or against the defendant and restrained them from manufacturing, marketing, selling, and advertising medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under Glenmark’s trade mark – ‘TELMA’ and ‘TELMA-AM’ and any other mark deceptively similar to the same. The injunction was granted to prevent confusion or deception amounting to infringement or passing off of Glenmark’s trade mark registrations. Telma and Telma-AM are trademarked names for […]

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi HC passes ex parte injunction in favour of Glenmark in ‘TELMA / TELMA-AM’ counterfeiting claim Read More »

Rooh Afza v. Dil Afza Part II: Meaning Found in Trademark Protection

/ By / Trademark

In January last year, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Hamdard National Foundation (India) v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited had refused to grant an interim injunction preventing the defendant from using the mark ‘Sharbat Dil Afza’ which was alleged to infringe on the plaintiff’s mark ‘Sharbat Rooh Afza’. The injunction was refused on the ground that the marks were dissimilar and that similarity in the meaning of the words ‘Dil’ and ‘Rooh’ was not

Rooh Afza v. Dil Afza Part II: Meaning Found in Trademark Protection Read More »

DHC rules on Jurisdiction for Revocation Petitions and Appeals Post Dissolution of IPAB

/ By / Patent

Recently, the Delhi High Court delivered an important decision that clarified the jurisdiction of High Courts post the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 (TRA), which dissolved the IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board). As Praharsh noted in our weekly review, the question debated in this judgment was whether after the dissolution of the IPAB, a party could approach any High Court with revocation applications (under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970) and appeals (under Section 117A of the

DHC rules on Jurisdiction for Revocation Petitions and Appeals Post Dissolution of IPAB Read More »

DHC: Non-filing of Written Submissions by Applicant Cannot be Used to Delay Patent Application Processing

/ By / Patent

Last week, the Delhi High Court pronounced a decision rebuking a patent applicant for causing unnecessary delays in the patent application process by seeking repeated adjournments and not filing written submissions on time. In the case of FMC Corporation v. The Controller of Patents, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court observed that the patent applicant, FMC Corporation was delaying the processing of their patent application by not submitting their written submissions within the timeline prescribed by the Patents

DHC: Non-filing of Written Submissions by Applicant Cannot be Used to Delay Patent Application Processing Read More »

DHC Holds Identifying ‘Known Substance’ a Necessity for Section 3(d) Objections

/ By / Patent

Last month, the Delhi High Court in the case of DS Biopharma Limited v. The Controller of Patents and Designs clarified the procedural requirements to be met for the application of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act against pharmaceutical patent applications. Briefly, the case concerned an appeal from DS Biopharma under Section 117A of the Patents Act challenging an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs in relation to a pharmaceutical composition. The Controller had initially raised

DHC Holds Identifying ‘Known Substance’ a Necessity for Section 3(d) Objections Read More »

Rooh Afza v. Dil Afza: Finding Meaning in Trademark Protection

/ By / Others, Trademark

In January, the Delhi High Court in the case of Hamdard National Foundation (India) v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff in a case of trademark infringement concerning the plaintiff’s mark ‘Rooh Afza’ and the defendant’s mark ‘Dil Afza’. While the case has been settled, it provides an interesting example of how the boundaries of trademark protection are often tested by claimants seeking the enforcement of their rights. Background The case

Rooh Afza v. Dil Afza: Finding Meaning in Trademark Protection Read More »

Image of folder tag with text "confidential"

Bombay HC Clarifies the Contours of Copyright Infringement and Confidentiality Law

/ By / Copyright

The Bombay High Court in Tarun Wadhwa v. Saregama India Ltd & Anr deliberated upon the intersection of copyright infringement and confidentiality law and held that ideas cannot be copyrighted but can be protected through the application of confidentiality law. Background The case, decided by a single-judge Bombay High Court bench, concerned an allegation by the plaintiff, Tarun Wadhwa, of copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality. Wadhwa claimed that he had written a synopsis and a screenplay, Haila Zombie!, which

Bombay HC Clarifies the Contours of Copyright Infringement and Confidentiality Law Read More »

Green-coloured signboard with text "rejection just ahead"

Section 3(b) Rejections: Patent Office Rejects Claims for Nicotine Delivery Devices

/ By / Patent

We recently came across two decisions by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in which patent claim applications concerning two nicotine delivery devices were rejected on the ground of the same being affected by section 3(b) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. Section 3(b) provides that “an invention the primary or intended use or commercial exploitation of which could be contrary to public order or morality or which causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to

Section 3(b) Rejections: Patent Office Rejects Claims for Nicotine Delivery Devices Read More »

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2021

/ By / Others

Here’s wishing all our readers a very happy, safe, and healthy new year! Continuing our annual tradition of recounting the significant developments that impacted the Indian IP landscape in the year that has been, we bring you a round-up of 2021’s developments. This year, we have divided these developments into three categories: a) Top 10 IP Judgments/Orders (Topicality/Impact) b) Top 10 IP Judgments/Orders (Jurisprudence/Legal Lucidity) and c) Top 10 Other IP Developments The decisions in the first category, i.e., Top 10

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2021 Read More »

SpicyIP Fortnightly Review (October 17-31)

/ By / Others

Delhi High Court extends the deadline to submit comments on Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021 Praharsh reported that the Delhi High Court Registry announced an extension for submitting suggestions and comments on the proposed Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021. The new deadline stands as November 10, 2021. The new Rules are a result of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. Drug Price Controls in the US: Same, Same but Different? I wrote about

SpicyIP Fortnightly Review (October 17-31) Read More »

Scroll to Top