Search Indian IP Case Law
Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and geographical indications — organised by Act and section, each with a link to the judgment on the court’s website.
Recently added judgments
Case notes prepared by the Ragulika IP team, each linked to the judgment on the court’s website.
Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
A combination of distinct and independent active drugs, each with its own chemical identity and mechanism, does not fall under the Section 3(d) bar for derivatives of known substances. Using phrases such as 'for simultaneous, sepa…
Inventive StepMethod of TreatmentPharmaceutical CombinationPrior ArtTrade MarksArun Kumar Gupta v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Issuance of notice in Form O-3 under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a mandatory pre-condition for removal of a trade mark from the Register on account of non-renewal. Mere expiry of registration or failure to file a…
Form O-3Mandatory NoticeRegistered ProprietorRemoval of TrademarkTrade MarksAshiana Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.
A mere contractual promise to let someone adopt and use a mark is not the same as transferring ownership, where the contract makes ownership conditional on registration. Non-use of a mark for decades defeats a claim to common-law …
AssignmentDiscretionary OrderInterlocutory InjunctionLicenceGeographical IndicationsAsociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors.
Where two countries produce admittedly different goods known by the same name, the dispute falls to be resolved under Section 10 of the Geographical Indications Act as one of homonymous geographical indications, which permits and …
Community RightGeographical IndicationHomonymous GIPrior UserPatentsBayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
A compulsory licence under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970 may be granted where the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to a patented invention have not been satisfied, the invention is not available at a reason…
Compulsory LicencePublic HealthReasonably Affordable PriceSection 84DesignsBharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited
A design's novelty and originality under the Designs Act must be assessed by comparing it, as applied to the specific article for which registration is sought, against prior art shown to have been applied to the same or a similar …
CancellationDesign RegistrationNoveltyOriginalityPatentsBigtec Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
An objection that devising nucleotide probes or primers is routine experimentation lacking inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must engage with evidence of unexpected effects placed on record; and the Section 3(c) exclusion for …
BiotechnologyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior ArtPatentsBishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries
An improvement on a device or process already known must involve more than a routine workshop improvement; it must independently satisfy the tests of novelty and inventive step by producing a new result, a new article, or a better…
Inventive StepNoveltyObviousnessPatent RevocationPatentsBoehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents & Anr.
A divisional application under Section 16 is maintainable only where the claims of the parent application themselves disclose a plurality of distinct inventions; disclosure of additional inventions solely in the specification, wit…
Claim ConstructionDivisional ApplicationPatent ProsecutionPlurality Of InventionsTrade MarksCadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
In assessing deceptive similarity between trade marks for medicinal products, courts must apply a stricter standard than for ordinary goods because confusion can endanger public health, having regard to the nature of the marks, th…
Deceptive SimilarityPassing OffPharmaceutical TrademarkPhonetic SimilarityBrowse by Act and section
Every case is linked to the statutory provisions it interprets.