202411.26
28

Use of terms “payment” and “transactions” does not automatically classify an invention as a Business Method

The case involves an appeal by COMVIVA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 492/2022) against the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Controller refused the patent application titled “Methods and Devices for Authentication of an Electronic Payment Card using Electronic Token” on the grounds that the claims were in the nature of a business…

202411.18
28

‘VARUN’ or ‘ARUN’ ice cream- Are they confusing?

Case Background: Hatsun Agro Product Limited (Petitioner) sought to remove the trademark ‘VARUN’ used by the Respondent Balakrishnan Nair for ice creams, claiming it was similar to their trademark ‘ARUN’ used by them since 1970. This note examines the core arguments put forward by the parties and the order passed by the Court. Petitioner in…

202411.12
28

Onus is on the Petitioner to establish grounds for Revocation

The Petitioner, Embio Limited (Embio), sought the revocation of a patent granted to the first respondent, Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The patent in question (Case no. (ORA/35/2014/PT/CHN); Embio Limited Vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Ors.) pertains to a method for the preparation of new optically pure 1-phenyl-2 (N-alkyl/arylamino) propanol hydrochlorides with 100%…

202411.04
28

Star shines over Star Plastics in a Dispute over the Trademark ‘STAR’

The dispute before the Madras High Court revolves around the trademark ‘STAR’. The Petitioner, Star Plastics filed the rectification petition to cancel the registration for the mark in class 11 in the name of the Respondent, Sajeev Antony. This note discusses the contentions raised by the parties and the findings of the High Court while…

202411.04
28

Court upholds validity of Lock-in period in an Employment agreement

Background The case involves three petitions filed by Lily Packers Private Limited against three different respondents working at different positions in the Petitioner company (ARB.P. 1210, 1212 and 1213/2023). All the Respondents had left the company during the lock-in period of 3 years from the date of joining the company. The employment contract had an…