Supreme Court recently examined interplay between copyright and design protection in a dispute concerning infringement of intellectual property rights regarding the design and manufacturing of internal parts of cryogenic storage tanks and distribution systems used for transporting industrial gases and liquefied natural gas (LNG). The judgement addresses the maintainability of the appeals and the application…

Facts and Background Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) which owns and controls public performance rights of over 400 music labels with 45 lakh international and domestic sound recordings, issued a notice to Azure Hospitality Private Limited (Azure) on 20 July 2022, asking to cease and desist from exploiting the sound recordings in which PPL held copyright…

CS(COMM) 567/2024, Delhi High Court. Background F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Roche) brought a Patent infringement case, at the Delhi High Court, against Natco Pharma Limited (Natco). The claim of Rochhe was based on infringement of its Patent for a compound Risdiplam marketed under the brand name EVRYSDI® used in the treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy…

Background The case involves a patent dispute between Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiaries (FoldRx Pharmaceuticals, LLC, PF PRISM IMB B.V., and Wyeth LLC) (Petitioners) against Softgel Healthcare Private Limited (Respondent), an Indian Company. The dispute centres around the alleged infringement of Pfizer’s “441 Patent” related to TAFAMIDIS 61 mg capsules, sold under the brand name…

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 4/2025, I.A. 3780/2025 & I.A. 3781/2025 Delhi High Court The appellants through this Appeal before the Delhi High Court sought to overturn a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing their patent application, titled “Innovative Change To Solve Any Dispute, Unexpected Business Loss, Closures, Financial Loss, Unexpected Accidents,”. The application was…

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has set aside the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal Order to register the device mark consisting of Prakriti Paint with cow head device logo under Class 2. The Court held that the Registrar of Trade Marks erred in applying Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which…

Q1: How does the Indian legal system differentiate between games of chance and games of skill? The Indian courts have used the “dominant factor test” or “predominant test” to determine whether skill or chance plays a predominant part in determining the result of the game. Games based on skill are kept out of the purview…

At the centre of this dispute is the goodwill of the law firm Remfry & Sagar and its name that was gifted by Dr V. Sagar to the Remfry & Sagar Consultants Private Limited (RSCPL), a private limited company substantially held by Dr. Sagar’s children who were not legal practitioners The appeals before the Delhi…

Background of the Case Saregama India Limited (Saregama) filed a suit against Vels Film International Limited (Defendant no 1) and others, at the Delhi High Court, for infringing its copyright in the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the film “Moodu Pani” by using it in the film “Aghathiyaa”. Saregama claimed ownership of the song…

I.A. 7635/2024 and I.A. 46685/2024IN C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 38/2022 Background The Petitioner, Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., is engaged in manufacturing and marketing diverse pharmaceutical products, including anti-diabetic drugs. The Respondent no. 2, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, is a company organized under the laws of Germany and is involved in developing, manufacturing, and marketing pharmaceuticals worldwide,…

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Opella Healthcare Group (“Petitioner”) in its bid to protect its mark “PHENSEDYL.” The dispute revolved around the Respondent’s (Vaibhav) mark “PHENSERYL” and its associated artistic work, which the Petitioner argued were deceptively similar to their well-known trademark. The Petitioner has also obtained an injunction from the…

The case highlights that apart from claims of ‘trade secrets’ and ‘confidential information’ the attorneys working with a law firm are bound by attorney client communication being privileged and cannot be divulged to a third party under any circumstances. Sharing such information and communication would not only be unethical but also a breach of the…