- AI
- Arbitration
- Asia
- Automobile
- Bangladesh
- Banking
- Biodiversity
- Biological Inventions
- bLAWgathon
- Brand Valuation
- Business
- Celebrity Rights
- Company Act
- Company Law
- Competition Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Consumer Protection Authority
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Media
- Digital Right Management
- Dispute
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Environment Law Practice
- ESIC Act
- EX-Parte
- Farmer Right
- Fashion Law
- FDI
- FERs
- Foreign filing license
- Foreign Law
- Gaming Industry
- GDPR
- Geographical Indication (GI)
- GIg Economy
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- IBC
- India
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property Protection
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- IT Act
- IVF technique
- Judiciary
- Khadi Industries
- labour Law
- Legal Case
- Legal Issues
- Lex Causae
- Licensing
- Live-in relationships
- Lok Sabha Bill
- Marriage Act
- Maternity Benefit Act
- Media & Entertainment Law
- Mediation Act
- Member of Parliament
- Mergers & Acquisition
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- News & Updates
- Non-Disclosure Agreement
- Online Gaming
- Patent Act
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Fess
- Patent Filing
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Marketing
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patents
- Personality rights
- pharma
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Pollution
- Posh Act
- Protection of SMEs
- RERA
- Section 3(D)
- Signapore
- Social Media
- Sports Law
- Stamp Duty
- Stock Exchange
- Surrogacy in India
- TAX
- Technology
- Telecom Law
- Telecommunications
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Litigation
- Trademark Registration in Foreign
- Traditional Knowledge
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
- WIPO
- Women Empower
Delhi High Court: Dabur “Sanitize” Soap Can’t be confused with Dettol
The COVID-19 situation has changed the buying behaviour of consumers and in a way changed the way products are being produced to meet the needs of consumers. It has created variations of products in both the hygiene and immunity areas – and most products have found room for themselves in one of these two buckets … Continue reading Delhi High Court: Dabur “Sanitize” Soap Can’t be confused with Dettol
Read more »Jurisdictional Dispute with regards to section 22(4) of Design Act, 2000 and Commercial Court Act, 2015
The Supreme Court case of S. D. Containers vs. M/s Mold Tek Packing [1] was a matter of jurisdictional issue due to the conflict between section 22(4) of the Design Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2000), and Commercial Courts Act, 2015. To understand how Supreme Court addressed the issue, it is important to … Continue reading Jurisdictional Dispute with regards to section 22(4) of Design Act, 2000 and Commercial Court Act, 2015
Read more »IPO-JPO Bilateral Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program – Acceptance Of Requests For Second Year
A Bilateral Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program was initiated between the Indian Patent Office (IPO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on December 5, 2019. In the first year of pilot program implementation, the IPO accepted applications in several rounds throughout the year (December 2019, March 2020, August 2020), which ended with last round … Continue reading IPO-JPO Bilateral Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program – Acceptance Of Requests For Second Year
Read more »S.D. Containers Indore v. M/s Mold Tek Packaging- Supreme Court Hears Transfer Case
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, recently in the case of S.D. Containers Indore v. M/s Mold Tek Packaging, [i] clarified the ambit of certain important provisions of the Design Act, 2000, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Brief Facts of the case: The Plaintiff/Respondent had initially filed a suit for declaration, and to obtain a permanent … Continue reading S.D. Containers Indore v. M/s Mold Tek Packaging- Supreme Court Hears Transfer Case
Read more »Philips Files Patent Infringement Case Against Xiaomi
The Dutch technology company, Koninklijke Philips, has moved a patent infringement case against the Chinese Smartphone and Technology Company, Xiaomi, its affiliates, officers, or agents. In this case the Plaintiff has claimed that the Defendants have used the Plaintiff’s Universal Mobile Telecommunication Service (UMTS) enhancement technology such as High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA), HSPA+, and LTE, … Continue reading Philips Files Patent Infringement Case Against Xiaomi
Read more »Putting A Stop To“Vexatious” Claims In Foreign Courts: The Delhi High Court Comes To The Rescue
Introduction: The Delhi High Court in the recent case of HT Media Limited & Anr. v. Brain link International, Inc.,[i] decided to grant an anti-suit injunction against the defendant company based in the United States of America that infringed the domain name of Hindustan Times Media Ltd. (“HT”). HT sent a cease and desist notice … Continue reading Putting A Stop To“Vexatious” Claims In Foreign Courts: The Delhi High Court Comes To The Rescue
Read more »Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. vs Treasure Vase Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
“The degree of distinctiveness, and, therefore, the possibility of registration as a trade mark, is inversely proportional to the degree of obviousness: the more obvious the word, the less the degree of distinctiveness and the chances of its registration” Justice G.S. Patel In a recent trademark suit filed by Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High … Continue reading Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. vs Treasure Vase Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
Read more »Delhi High Court – Proposed Patent Rules
The Delhi High Court recently divulged into seeking suggestions and comments from members of the Bar in to draft rules to govern Patent Suits. The invitation to make suggestions to the proposed “The High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2020” are to be sent to the office of the Registrar General at jrrules.dhc@gov.in, within 4 … Continue reading Delhi High Court – Proposed Patent Rules
Read more »Is Certification Under Section 65B(4) Of Indian Evidence Act Mandatory For The Production Of Electronic Evidence?
In a recent judgement passed by the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice RF Nariman, S Ravindra Bhat, and V Ramasubramanium, the Supreme Court has clarified that certificate under Section 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act,1872 is mandatory for the production of electronic evidence before the court. The matter came from a reference … Continue reading Is Certification Under Section 65B(4) Of Indian Evidence Act Mandatory For The Production Of Electronic Evidence?
Read more »Mittal Electronics vs Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd
Khurana and Khurana, has successfully obtained modification of the ex-parte ad interim injunction order granted against the Defendants in Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances Pvt Ltd &Ors CS(Comm) 60/2020, for both, concealment of material facts as well as on merits.The Delhi High Court has upheld the Supreme Court ruling in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-operative … Continue reading Mittal Electronics vs Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd
Read more »