Search Intellectual Property

Listen to this post
Inventions addressing transaction security patentable under Indian Patents Act

In a recent judgement, the Delhi High Court, while hearing an appeal against an order of the Controller of Patents and Designs, which refused a patent grant, distinguished between a technical method and a business method while examining the technical contributions/ effects of an invention. In the impugned order, the Controller refused a patent application titled “Methods and Devices for Authentication of an Electronic Payment Card using Electronic Token” on the grounds that the claimed invention falls under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act (“Act”), categorising it as a business method and a computer programme, per se.

Continue Reading Inventions addressing transaction security patentable under Indian Patents Act
Listen to this post

The Calcutta High Court has established its Intellectual Property Rights Division (IPRD) and Intellectual Property Rights Appellate Division (IPRAD), marking an advancement in Intellectual Property law. This development, marked by a gazette notification dated September 20, 2024, which notified the Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2023, adds Calcutta High Court to the list of those (Delhi, Madras and Himachal Pradesh) already engaged in implementing specialised regulations for Intellectual Property (IP) matters in India.

Continue Reading Calcutta Joins the Ranks: Addition of another IP Division in India’s Legal Landscape
Listen to this post

In a recent judgement dated November 28, 2024, the Madras High Court while hearing an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”), quashed an impugned order that the Controller of Patents and Designs (“Controller”) had passed, on grounds of non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice.

Continue Reading Is it acceptable to file divisional application on the day of grant of parent application?
Listen to this post
Procedural Fairness and Service Errors: Lessons from the Coaster Shoes Trademark Dispute

In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court recently addressed crucial issues surrounding trademark opposition proceedings in Coaster Shoes Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks & Anr vide a judgment dated August 16, 2024. The Court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the responsibility of the Registrar of Trade Marks (“Registrar”) to ensure completeness of service in trademark disputes.

Continue Reading Procedural Fairness and Service Errors: Lessons from the Coaster Shoes Trademark Dispute
Listen to this post
Invention that is a series of instructions does not meet the criteria for patent protection under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a BlackBerry Limited (hereinafter “Appellant”) appeal against the Assistant Controller of Patent’s refusal of its patent application in the field of wireless communication titled “Administration of Wireless Systems[1]”. The application was for an invention that manages wireless systems by configuring wireless client devices using both primary and secondary wireless servers. The ld. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejected the application on the ground of non-patentability under Section 3(k) [2], stating that the subject patent application was directed towards set of instructions and which were purely functional and lacking any inventive hardware features. 

Continue Reading Invention that is a series of instructions does not meet the criteria for patent protection under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act
Listen to this post
Reptilian showdown in Court

In a landmark decision that concluded a protracted legal saga, the Delhi High Court (“Court”) has recently resolved a 23-year dispute between two global fashion titans – Lacoste S.A. (“Plaintiff”) and Crocodile International Pte Ltd (“Defendant”). The Court issued a permanent injunction against the Hong Kong-based Crocodile International, prohibiting the use of the Crocodile trademark, which was found to infringe upon the iconic trademark of the French luxury sportswear brand, Lacoste.

Continue Reading Reptilian showdown in Court
Listen to this post

Background

In Mahesh Gupta v Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court affirmed the refusal order issued by Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (“Respondent”) against a patent application filed for “Portable Vehicle Management System”(“Subject Patent”). The Respondent refused the patent application on the grounds that it did not meet the inventive step requirement under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970, and failed to qualify as an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act.

Continue Reading Portable Vehicle Management System Denied Patent
Listen to this post
Mastery of Moment Marketing: Maximum Impact & Minimal Legal Risk

Introduction

In the dynamic world of digital marketing, moment marketing is emerging as a potent strategy for leveraging real-time events and trending issues to engage audiences across social media platforms. Its agility and virality have helped many brands successfully connect with the general public, particularly social media users, across the globe in unprecedented ways. As brands race to capitalize on such viral moments, the relevance of moment marketing in generating a high number of impressions on their social media posts and even physical hoardings has never been more pertinent.

Continue Reading Mastery of Moment Marketing: Maximum Impact & Minimal Legal Risk
Listen to this post

Introduction

Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970, states that a method related to agriculture and horticulture falls under inventions not patentable. The purpose of Section 3(h) of the Act is to protect “conventional” practices followed by farmers, and to safeguard traditional farming, cultivation and breeding practices within the public domain, preventing exclusive rights and monopolies through granting of patents. Section 3(h) has survived through amendments and has remained an essential part of the Patents Act, highlighting the importance of the Section.

Continue Reading Section 3(h): Method of Agriculture and Jurisprudence