Last month Delhi High Court held that use of a single colour as against a combination of colours does not qualify as a ‘mark’ under Section 2(1)(m) and as a ‘trademark’ under Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trademark Act.

Infringement or passing off in use of single colour as trademark By Prince Bharti and Manoj Gupta Last month Delhi High Court held that use of a single colour as

The Division Bench of Madras High Court has reversed the findings of the Single Judge and set aside the interim injunction order after holding that there cannot be any copyright in the title of the cinematograph film or any other copyrightable subject matter.

Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (the Act) provides for a possibility of stay of a trademark infringement suit in case there is a challenge to the registered trademark which is the subject matter of the suit.

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on January 8, 2018 has held that unless a design is not significantly distinguishable from the known designs or combination of designs, then such a design is not entitled to registration.

Madras High Court has recently held that “dubbing” of a cinematograph film does not constitute translation and instead falls within the ambit of the expression ‘communication to the public’.

Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970 mandates “a method of agriculture or horticulture” as non-patentable subject matter.

Amendments of patent applications may involve amending any portion of either the complete specification, or any information pertaining to such patent application.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) have unanimously approved CTL019 (tisagenlecleucel) or Kymriah®, an investigational chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy.

IP law provides means by which the IP rights may be effectively enforced against infringement. However, the law also has provisions to prevent any person, especially right-owners, from making indiscriminate threats of infringement proceedings against others.