Background The article covers an Appeal, C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 60/2024, filed by Dong Yang PC, Inc. a Korean company against the decision of Controller of Patents and Designs (Controller) whereby it rejected Dong Yang PC, Inc. (Appellant) Patent Application No. 2554/DEL/2013 relating to a “Vertical Rotary Parking System”. The application was refused on grounds of lack…

In a recent judgment, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction granted by the District Judge (Commercial Courts), restraining the defendants, KRB Enterprises and others, from using the mark ‘KRB’ or any other mark deceptively similar to ‘KRBL’, the registered trademark of M/s KRBL Limited. The High Court dismissed the…

Interim relief is crucial in patent cases, as trials can be lengthy. Without temporary protection, patentees risk losing the value of their patents due to unauthorized use. Measures like security deposits help enforce damages awards. In a recent case before the Delhi High Court, Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Ace Technologies Corp., the court ordered…

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Pvt. Ltd. vs. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr [RFA(OS)(COMM) 18/2025] granted permanent injunction in favour of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Himalaya Wellness Company against Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited, restraining it from using the mark “Liv-333” due to its deceptive similarity to Himalaya’s…

The main issue in this appeal was the validity of the non-solicitation and non-compete clause in the Employment Agreement under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act (ICA). The court held that any terms of the employment contract that impose a restriction on the right of the employee to seek employment post-termination are void under…

No confusion between a sanitary pad and medicine designed for constipation relief. The Delhi High Court dismisses Appeal in Trademark Dispute Between RSPL and Sun Pharma. The court concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two trademarks, PRO-EASE (of RSPL) and PRUEASE (of Sun Pharma) considering the distinct nature of the goods,…

The article discusses an Appeal (FAO(COMM)114/2024) in a Patent infringement case concerning two Patents pertaining to tamper-evident and tamper-proof lids. The commercial court had initially granted an injunction which it later set aside. The judgment addresses the correctness of the commercial court’s order setting aside the interim injunction and clarifies legal principles relating to patent…

In India, humour, parody, and satire have always been a big part of public conversations. They are great for challenging societal and political norms and speaking out against institutions, politics, and even big companies. In the context of parody and satire by stand-up comedians, in the case of Ashutosh Dubey Vs. Netflix Inc and Others1…

In a recent ruling Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, Comm (Misc) 650 of 2022, the Bombay High Court has set aside the order of the Registrar refusing Yamaha’s ‘WR’ mark based on Honda Motor Company Ltd.’s “WR-V” trademark registered in class 12. The Court while setting aside the order emphasized…

Background The Plaintiff, Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki (Toyota), Japan, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LMW Limited (“defendant”) for alleged patent infringement related to Indian Patent IN759 titled “Fiber Bundle Concentrating Apparatus in Spinning Machine.” The plaintiff/Toyota sought to restrain the defendant from using and selling the defendant’s product Spinpact or any other product infringing…

Goethe-Institut sued the defendants for unauthorised use of the marks MAX MUELLER and MAX MUELLER INSTITUTE for similar educational services The court noted that a passing-off action will lie even against a registered trademark owner The plaintiff has been using MAX MUELLER BHAVAN to identify its institutes since 1957, while the defendants adopted the mark…

The Delhi High Court granted Amazon Technologies Inc. (Amazon Tech) a stay on the operation of the decree awarding ₹336,02,87,000/- (approx. US$ 390 Million) plus costs for trademark infringement, highlighting serious procedural irregularities, lack of pleadings and evidence against Amazon Tech, and improper enhancement of damages. The judgment primarily deals with an application by Amazon…