Overview of the case: In Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Controller of Patents and Designs & Voicemonk Inc. (CMA(PT) No. 9 of 2024, decided on 05 January 2026), the Madras High Court upheld the Controller’s decision rejecting Flipkart’s post-grant opposition to Indian Patent No. IN312437. The patent concerns a virtual agent system that helps…
At first glance, the Delhi High Court’s decision in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Siddharth Vij may seem like a straightforward trademark dispute about cancellation of a deceptive similar mark. Panasonic filed the petition and argued that the respondent’s PONTA marks in Class 9 were too close to its earlier PENTA marks, and the Court agreed…
In a significant decision highlighting the importance of consistency in trademark prosecution and litigation, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Laser Shaving India Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the refusal of interim injunction against RKM International Products Pvt. Ltd. and others in relation to the use of the mark…
In a recent judgment concerning trademark protection in the pharmaceutical industry, the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. in a trademark infringement and passing off action against Mr. Satej M. Katekar. The dispute centred around the defendant’s use of the marks “ABSUN” and “ABSUN PHARMA,” which the plaintiff alleged infringed…
In a recent decision of significance to the pharmaceutical industry, the Bombay High Court was called upon to resolve a trademark dispute between Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited and United Biotech Private Limited concerning the competing marks OCTRIDE and OTIDE. The case presented an intersection between statutory trademark rights and the common law remedy of passing…
Background Imagine teaching a machine to paint like Raja Ravi Verma, write like Arundhati Roy, or compose music in a style reminiscent of A.R. Rahman. To achieve that, the machine must absorb thousands of hours of music, millions of pages of text, and vast collections of visual art. This is the central reality of generative…
The Delhi High Court’s recent judgment (Laksh Vir Singh vs. Union of India ) on the Right to be Forgotten marks a significant step in India’s privacy jurisprudence, especially in the context of digital accessibility and online discoverability. More importantly, it moves the doctrine beyond piecemeal recognition and lays down a structured framework for de-indexing…
A significant trademark dispute concerning medicinal products came before the Delhi High Court, involving two major pharmaceutical companies and raising important questions regarding deceptive similarity, dishonest adoption, prior user rights, and pharmaceutical trademark protection. The Plaintiff, Sanofi, proprietor of the anti-thrombosis drug sold under the mark PLAVIX, instituted proceedings against Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and its…
The Delhi High Court recently delivered a ruling concerning the intersection of trademark and copyright law while adjudicating a petition filed by Fortune Marketing Private Limited seeking cancellation of a copyright registration granted in favour of Gujarat Pesticides for the artistic work “ZOOOK.” The case raised significant questions regarding the extent to which copyright registration…
Can a brand command legal protection in India before it officially enters the market? The Delhi High Court’s recent decision in Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Tech Square Engineering Pvt. Ltd. answers this with a clear yes, provided the reputation had already spilled over into India. BRIEF FACTS Toyota challenged the registration of the mark…
The Kerala High Court reaffirmed the strong protection accorded to registered and well-known trademarks while dismissing an appeal filed by Taste Box against an interim injunction granted in favour of JSF Holdings Private Limited, proprietor of the mark “LAZZA.” The dispute centred around the Defendant’s use of the mark “HAZZA” for restaurant services and raised…
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Hindware v. Google marks an important development in the intermediary liability jurisprudence. By holding Google liable for trademark infringement through its AdWords program, the Court has narrowed the protective umbrella of “safe harbour” under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. What makes this case truly significant is…
