Author name: Praharsh Gour

CGPDTM to Recruit 553 Patent and Designs Examiners via QCI

/ By / Patent

Starting the day with some good news, the office of Controller General of Patent Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has issued a notification for recruiting 553 Patent and Designs Examiners! However, it will be done via the Quality Council of India – more details on that later below. Those familiar with the Indian IP administration will know that an inadequate workforce is a systematic challenge that has plagued the functioning of the Indian patent office and the office of CGPDTM, generally, […]

CGPDTM to Recruit 553 Patent and Designs Examiners via QCI Read More »

Results for Patent and Trademark Agent Exams Are Out!!!

/ By / Patent, Trademark

The Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks released the results for the 2023 Patent and Trademark Agent examinations. Of 1496 candidates who appeared for the Trademark Agent Exam, 167 had earlier qualified for the viva voice. Of these, 103 applicants have passed the exam.  With regard to the Patent Agent Exam, of 5695 candidates who appeared for the examination, 716 had earlier qualified for the viva voice. Of these, 529 applicants have cleared the exams.  While congratulations

Results for Patent and Trademark Agent Exams Are Out!!! Read More »

DHC IPD Roster Revision: Benches of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice C. Hari Shankar to Function as the DHC IPD 

/ By / Others

Delhi High Court’s Intellectual Property Division sees the return of Justice Prathiba M. Singh to the roster who will now take charge of the division, along with Justice C. Hari Shankar. In a notification dated June 26, 2023 (pdf), it is stated that the new roster will be operational from July 3, 2023, and the matters which will be heard by the IPD will be assigned by the Judge In-Charge (Original Side), Justice Yogesh Khanna.  The roster for the IPD

DHC IPD Roster Revision: Benches of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice C. Hari Shankar to Function as the DHC IPD  Read More »

Hear Me Out! Assessment of Phonetic Similarity is as Important as that of Visual Similarity: An Assessment of INSEAD v. Fullstack Education

/ By / Trademark

[This post is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Surima Singh. Surima is a fifth-year student pursuing B.A., LL.B from Christ Academy Institute of Law, Bengaluru. As she describes herself, she developed a keen interest in law and justice from an early stage. Her area of interest lies in Constitutional law and IP laws.] On May 17, the Delhi High Court revoked Fullstack Education’s (respondent) INSAID mark for being deceptively similar to the Institut Europeen D Administration Des Affaires, Insead, Association’s (petitioner)

Hear Me Out! Assessment of Phonetic Similarity is as Important as that of Visual Similarity: An Assessment of INSEAD v. Fullstack Education Read More »

DHC’s IPD Annual Report a Positive Step for Transparency – Here’s How It Could Go Further

/ By / Others

To mark the occasion of World IP Day on 26th April 2023, the Delhi High Court’s IP Division (IPD) released its annual report for 2022-23, detailing the progress made by it in the past 1 year. Released after a few months from the date of IPD’s 1st anniversary i.e. 28th February 2023, the report is full of interesting comments from the Judges of the IPD and the members of the IP Bar and has a dedicated chapter summarizing the key

DHC’s IPD Annual Report a Positive Step for Transparency – Here’s How It Could Go Further Read More »

Delhi High Court Sets Aside 3 Orders from the Patent Office and the Trademark Registry, in 1 day!

/ By / Patent, Trademark

On April 28, 2023, Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court passed three separate orders, all dealing with a similar issue- unclear, unreasoned orders from the Patent Office and the Trademark Registry (IP Offices) that rejected the patent/ trademark applications. While there has been a recent rising trend of such orders from the court (see here, here, here, here and here) wherein the IP Offices’ orders were remanded back for being cryptic, unclear on the grounds of objection, rejecting

Delhi High Court Sets Aside 3 Orders from the Patent Office and the Trademark Registry, in 1 day! Read More »

Music to Many Ears! Bombay High Court Passes a Landmark Order Recognizing the Right to Receive Royalties by Authors of Underlying Works

/ By / Copyright

[Long post ahead]  In a momentous development, the Bombay High Court made a bunch of important interpretations concerning the rights of the authors of underlying literary and musical works in light of the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012. The court passed a joint order in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd and Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Ltd. (pdf) and clarified that post the 2012 amendment, communication of a sound recording to the public

Music to Many Ears! Bombay High Court Passes a Landmark Order Recognizing the Right to Receive Royalties by Authors of Underlying Works Read More »

Rectifying Problematic Interim Injunctions: A Discussion on the Bombay High Court’s DB Decision in  Tri-Parulex v. CTR Manufacturing Industries

/ By / Patent

In perhaps a rare sighting, the Bombay High Court Division Bench’s recent order in Tri-Parulex Fire Protection System v. M/s. CTR Manufacturing Industries Private Limited (DB order) shows a lucid and crisp analysis of the three factors test for interim injunction in a patent related dispute. Readers will recall that unreasoned interim injunction orders have been discussed extensively on the blog (see here, here, here and here) wherein different authors have highlighted the risks associated with these unreasoned orders and

Rectifying Problematic Interim Injunctions: A Discussion on the Bombay High Court’s DB Decision in  Tri-Parulex v. CTR Manufacturing Industries Read More »

Done, so Dusted? Discussing the Relevance of the Responses Filed Against FERs Issued by Trademark Registry

/ By / Trademark

Riddle me this, what is something that, despite cited similar marks, helps you get a trademark right; But is not relevant later unless the cited mark puts up a fight? Well, according to the Delhi High Court’s judgement in Under Armour INC v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd., it’s the reply to the first examination report (FER) filed by the Plaintiff. Let’s back up a little. The dispute in the present case was around the adoption of the marks

Done, so Dusted? Discussing the Relevance of the Responses Filed Against FERs Issued by Trademark Registry Read More »

Madras High Court Notifies Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 

/ By / Others

In a huge development for IP community, the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 have been notified in the official gazette dated April 5, 2023 (pdf). The current notification comes after the directions of the Court to notify the inauguration of the IP Division in  Galatea Limited v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras (see posts here and here), making it the second Court in the country to have an IP Division, after the Delhi High

Madras High Court Notifies Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022  Read More »

Scroll to Top