Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Patent Examination face criticism for statutory misquotations and misinterpretations. Experts warn they could disrupt prosecution if not substantially revised.
As Calcutta and Delhi High Courts diverge on whether Section 124 covers Section 47 cancellation, key questions arise: Does rectification include non-use proceedings? Can an infringement suit be stayed during cancellation?
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 well-known mark status. The ruling emphasizes that well-known status can be determined based on facts and evidence presented in individual cases.
Courts differ on whether Section 47 trademark cancellation proceedings amount to 'rectification' under Section 124, affecting stay of infringement suits—key for litigation strategy.
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, affirming that well-known trademark status can be established through evidence in individual proceedings.
The Delhi High Court held that a formal declaration under Rule 124 of the Trademark Rules is not mandatory to invoke Section 11(2) of the Trademarks Act for asserting well-known mark status. The ruling permits reliance on evidence adduced in individual proceedings to establish well-known status.
The Madras High Court in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah examined Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, highlighting issues of consideration and acquiescence in determining ownership of photographs from the film 'Aval Appadithan'.
The IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Pharmaceutical Patent Applications, 2026, have drawn strong criticism for misquoting statutory provisions and introducing legally unsound interpretations. Stakeholders urge comprehensive revision before finalization.
The Madras High Court's decision in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah underscores the fragility of unwritten copyright arrangements. The Court examined Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act and the doctrine of acquiescence, stressing the need for clear assignment documentation.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a formal declaration is not mandatory to invoke Section 11(2) of the Trademarks Act. The decision permits reliance on well-known mark status established through prior proceedings, potentially affecting the evidentiary role of Rule 124.
The Delhi High Court offers insights on navigating jurisdictional issues within the digital realm in Hindustan Unilever Limited v Kwick Living.
The Calcutta High Court asserts that Hotel Appolo must obtain an IPRS license for broadcasting music to guests, reinforcing copyright law in hospitality services.