Patent Act

Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Appeals in Trademark Matters: Exploring the theory of ‘trappings of court’ vis-à-vis Registrar’s office

Summary: In a significant ruling that clarifies the appellate framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ( “the Act”), and Trade Marks Rules, 2017 ( “the Rules”), the  Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (“Hon’ble Division Bench”) has held that a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal under Section 91 of the Act. The judgment in Glorious Investment Limited vs. Dunlop International Limited & Anr., TEMPAPO-IPD 5 of 2025, provides crucial insights into the legislative intent behind the current trademark regime, the nature of quasi-judicial authorities under the Act, as well as the applicability of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”).Continue Reading Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Appeals in Trademark Matters: Exploring the theory of ‘trappings of court’ vis-à-vis Registrar’s office

Weather “CROMPTON PEBBLE” and “PEBBLE” are similar or identical?

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited’s (Crompton) appeal has been dismissed, upholding the order that restrains Crompton from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in electric irons under the impugned “PEBBLE” trademark, due to V Guard Industries Limited’s (V Guard) application.Continue Reading Whether “CROMPTON PEBBLE” and “PEBBLE” are similar or identical?

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

Synergism to be displayed across the breadth of patent claim

Willowood Chemicals Private Limited’s (hereinafter “the Patentee”) patent was revoked by the Controller of Patents (hereinafter “Controller”) due to post-grant opposition as the Controller held that the Patentee had failed to display any technical advancement and synergism between the components of the claimed composition across the breath of the claims.Continue Reading Synergism to be displayed across the breadth of patent claim