Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 7- August 13)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Last week was full of exciting discussions on the blog. Praharsh wrote on the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench order staying the operation of the Single Judge’s direction in Vifor “Product by Process Claims” case and on the Oppositions Status Report filed by the Trademark Registry before the Delhi High Court. Mathews discussed the Delhi High Court’s order directing for strict interpretation of the PCT timelines while filing the national phase applications. We also had guest posts by Rahul Bajaj […]

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 7- August 13) Read More »

A Division Bench Stays the Directions in the Vifor v. MSN Labs ‘Product by Process Claims’ Order

/ By / Patent

On 24 July, 2023 the Delhi High Court had passed a detailed order in Vifor v. MSN Laboratories, reading Process by Product patent claims within the Indian patent regime. Explaining the nitty gritty of these types of claims, the court refused to grant an injunction to Vifor (the plaintiff) and allowed the defendants to launch their products in the market. Merely 17 days later, a Division Bench of the High Court has now placed a stay (pdf) on the operation

A Division Bench Stays the Directions in the Vifor v. MSN Labs ‘Product by Process Claims’ Order 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 »

Gazing at Substantive vs Procedural Rights in the Light of SAP Se vs Swiss Auto Products and Anr

/ By / Trademark

[This post is authored by SpicyIP Intern Varsha Sharma. Varsha is a 5th year law student pursuing B. A. LL.B (Hons.) from Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat.] In this post, I will be dwelling on the aspect of vested substantive rights encompassed within procedural rules, from the perspective of the recent controversy raised in SAP Se vs Swiss Auto Products and Anr. The case revolved around SAP Se (Appellant) trying to furnish new evidence according to the Trademark Rules, 2002.

Gazing at Substantive vs Procedural Rights in the Light of SAP Se vs Swiss Auto Products and Anr Read More »

Trademark Registry Files Latest Data on Oppositions Before the Delhi High Court

/ By / Trademark

Data on the pendency and disposal of applications and oppositions are extremely crucial to understand the effectiveness of the Indian Patent Office and the Trademarks Registry. But accessing the latest data on the performance of these institutions has been a herculean task. Leaving aside the fate and quality of responses to RTI applications seeking this information (discussed extensively here), the Annual Reports of the Controller General’s office, presumably carrying all the necessary data, are uploaded on a yesteryear basis. So,

Trademark Registry Files Latest Data on Oppositions Before the Delhi High Court Read More »

Modern Foods v. Modern Snacks: A Pragmatic Approach to Trademark Infringement Suit Injunctions

/ By / Trademark

[This post is authored by our former blogger Rahul Bajaj. Rahul is an attorney at Ira Law.] When assessing whether a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is entitled to an interim injunction, the findings of courts on the 3 factors of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm are typically uniform, either supporting the grant of an injunction or its refusal. However, the July 2023 judgment of the Delhi High Court in Modern Foods v. Modern Snacks

Modern Foods v. Modern Snacks: A Pragmatic Approach to Trademark Infringement Suit Injunctions Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 31- August 6)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Last week was full of exciting discussions on the blog. Lokesh wrote a post on the 2023 amendments to the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and put out the second post in our ‘SpicyIP Flashback’ series. Praharsh discussed an interesting development in Karnataka where a Court granted an interim injunction to a law student against 2 law assistant professors, on copyright infringement claims. Anything important we’re missing out on? Drop us a comment below!  Highlights of the Week Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023:

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 31- August 6) Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Law Student Claiming Copyright Infringement Gets an Interim Injunction Against 2 Law Asst. Professors

/ By / Copyright

Ask anyone in academia what’s their worst nightmare. And probably, they’ll respond by saying “plagiarism.” Many face it, but only seldom do we hear stories where someone does something about it. Sharing one fascinating story here, a law student sued a law college, two of its professors and the editor of a journal alleging copyright infringement. The suit was instituted by Aathira Mannath A. (plaintiff), who alleged that earlier in 2023, she had participated in the “Global Jural Conclave 2023”

SpicyIP Tidbit: Law Student Claiming Copyright Infringement Gets an Interim Injunction Against 2 Law Asst. Professors Read More »

Journey Through “Julys” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present)

/ By / Others

Last month, while sifting through the pages of “Junes” on SpicyIP, I pored over some old posts to see what has or has not changed in these years. Whether it’s P.H. Kurian’s trail of transparency, discussions about authors and copyright societies, updates on the international IP landscape, or the hustle and bustle of the domestic IP domain, including Statements of Patent (Non-)Working, the journey through Junes had its own jilts and joys. Now, once more, guided by Sankofa sense, I set

Journey Through “Julys” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present) 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