Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
Courts differ on whether Section 124 allows stay of infringement suits when a Section 47 cancellation petition is pending; Delhi and Calcutta High Courts take conflicting views.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a formal declaration under Rule 124 is not required to invoke Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, reaffirming that well-known status can be established through evidence in individual proceedings.
In TCRC v Ganga Rudraiah, the Madras High Court examined ownership of copyright in behind-the-scenes (BTS) photographs from the film 'Aval Appadithan', focusing on Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court highlighted the importance of written agreements and found that mere acquiescence does not transfer rights.
The Delhi High Court held that a formal declaration under Rule 124 is not mandatory to invoke Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for claiming well-known status. The ruling allows courts to independently assess well-known marks based on evidence, even without prior recognition by the Registry.
The Calcutta and Delhi High Courts have adopted conflicting approaches on whether Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act allows a stay of infringement suits during Section 47 cancellation proceedings. The split raises urgency for a uniform interpretation of 'rectification proceedings'.
The Delhi High Court in ZARA v. ZORA held that a formal declaration under Rule 124 is not mandatory to invoke Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The ruling allows well-known status to be established through individual proceedings, raising questions over the role of Rule 124.
The Delhi High Court held that a formal declaration under Rule 124 is not necessary to establish a trademark as 'well-known' under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The ruling allows courts to independently assess well-known status based on facts and evidence.
Calcutta and Delhi High Courts differ on whether Section 47 cancellation triggers Section 124 stay. Courts remain split on whether non-use proceedings constitute 'rectification'.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a formal declaration under Rule 124 is not mandatory to invoke Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Courts may independently determine well-known status based on evidence.
The Indian Patent Office’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceutical Patent Applications, 2026, have drawn sharp criticism for misquoting statutory provisions and creating uncertainty in patent prosecution. Experts call for substantial revision before finalization.
The Calcutta and Delhi High Courts have adopted conflicting views on whether 'rectification proceedings' under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 include non-use cancellation under Section 47. The split raises uncertainty over whether infringement suits can be stayed during such proceedings.
Circuits differ on whether non-use cancellation under Section 47 constitutes 'rectification' under Section 124(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The Calcutta and Delhi High Courts have diverged on stay of infringement suits pending such proceedings.