The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses elaborately, the recent decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board reaffirming the importance of the principles of natural justice in judicial and/or quasi-judicial decisions, whilst also clarifying aspects of patent law with respect to cited prior art documents and description of the invention.
Elaborately discussing various IPAB Orders, including the 2011 decision in the case of LG Electronics and the very recent decision in the case of Esco Corporation, the article in this issue of IPR Amicus examines several issues involving divisional applications.
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus elaborately discusses a recent decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) wherein the IPAB allowed the appeal challenging the revocation of Indian Patent No. 262968 by the Joint Controller following post-grant opposition proceedings.
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses at length the recent decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) in the case of Stempeutics Research Pvt. Ltd. v.
The Delhi High Court recently granted an ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff and restrained the defendants, from using the mark “DMW” or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “BMW” trademarks.
Since February 2020, the Covid-19 (also known as Coronavirus) pandemic has been a major talking point and consequently many pandemic referenced words are being used as trademarks and are being filed for registration at Trademark Registries worldwide.
Article in June 2020 issue of IPR Amicus discusses elaborately the recent decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Competition Commission of India and Ors.
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus elaborately discusses a recent decision of the Bombay High Court which, while dealing with the issue of disparagement by a video blogger, laid down the principles by which any such video or any statement can be considered to be defamatory.
A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court recently examined whether trade secret protection can be granted to know-how with respect to a particular invention that has been patented outside India. The Court held that the Defendants cannot be said to be committing passing off with respect to the know-how of the Plaintiff no.1 passed to the Defendants since know-how/trade secret/confidential information is not a ‘property’ and no relief in rem can be claimed with respect to it.
The Delhi High Court recently held that once a person has contributed to any cinematographic film in any manner, then as per the moral rights, he/ she has right to paternity. The Single Judge upheld an order of the Trial Court granting mandatory interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff.