patent appeal

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

Google LLC (hereinafter, “appellant”) submitted its application for a patent titled “Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices”[i] to the controller of patents and designs on July 13, 2007, claiming priority from a US patent application.[ii] The application discloses the feature for transferring instant messaging sessions concurrently between devices and gives users the choice to mirror / refresh sessions interrupted by idle or away states. It provides flexibility in managing instant messaging sessions and a seamless continuation of conversations.Continue Reading Delhi HC dismisses instant messaging patent appeal

‘Appropriate office,’ not location of ‘hearing officer’, dictates patent appeal jurisdiction

Justice Hari Shanker of the Delhi High Court held that the jurisdiction for appeals under Section 117A of the Patents Act has to be determined by the location of the ‘appropriate office’ as provided by Rule 4[1] of the Patent Rules.Continue Reading ‘Appropriate office,’ not location of ‘hearing officer’, dictates patent appeal jurisdiction