Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
Delhi and Calcutta High Courts take conflicting views on whether Section 124 allows stay of infringement suits during non-use cancellation proceedings under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Delhi High Court in Esteve Pharmaceuticals v. CPD (2026) upheld the rejection of a patent for lack of inventive step, while affirming novelty, marking a nuanced application of Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Calcutta and Delhi High Courts differ on whether non-use cancellation proceedings under Section 47 trigger automatic stay of trademark infringement suits under Section 124. The split may require appellate resolution.
Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a patent for 'Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs' for lack of inventive step, while affirming novelty. The decision clarifies the threshold for non-obviousness in pharmaceutical innovations.
The Delhi High Court upheld rejection of a patent for 'Co-crystals of Tramadol and Coxibs' due to lack of inventive step, while affirming its novelty, clarifying the hierarchical application of patentability criteria under Indian law.
Calcutta and Delhi High Courts differ on whether Section 47 cancellation proceedings justify staying trademark infringement suits under Section 124. The split highlights uncertainty over the scope of 'rectification proceedings' and their impact on parallel litigation.
Conflicting approaches emerge as Calcutta and Delhi High Courts differ on whether non-use cancellation proceedings under Section 47 trigger automatic stay of infringement suits under Section 124.
The Madras High Court held that prolonged acquiescence can undermine copyright claims, even where ownership is clear. In TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah, the Court dismissed claims over film BTS photos due to failure to act promptly.
The interplay between Section 47 cancellation proceedings and Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 has led to conflicting rulings from the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts. The core issue: whether non-use cancellation triggers an automatic stay of infringement actions.
In TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah, the Madras High Court examined copyright ownership under Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, highlighting the risks of unwritten arrangements. Acquiescence and absence of consideration undermined the defendant's claim to BTS photographs from the film 'Aval Appadithan'.
The Delhi High Court in ZARA v. ZORA held that a formal declaration under Rule 124 is not mandatory to invoke the well-known status of a trademark under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The ruling emphasizes evidence-based assessment over procedural formalities.
The Delhi High Court stated that Amitabh Bachchan must appear personally to pursue his personality rights infringement suit. The direction was issued to encourage settlement and ensure judicial efficiency in high-profile IP disputes.