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.
38 results
for “FIR”
Hamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr. v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
While composite trade marks must be compared as a whole under the anti-dissection rule, it is permissible to examine a dominant or significant common element in determining the overall commercial impression, and a composite mark m…
Anti-Dissection RuleComposite MarksDeceptive SimilarityTrade DressCopyrightIndian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association & Ors.
Where music or lyrics are composed for a cinematograph film by an engaged composer or lyricist for valuable consideration, the film producer becomes the first owner of copyright in that contribution under Section 17 and thereby ac…
Assignment And LicensingCinematograph FilmCopyright SocietyFirst OwnershipPatentsITC Limited v. Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes an invention only where its primary or intended use or commercial exploitation is shown, on identifiable evidence, to be contrary to public order or morality or seriously prejudicial …
FER PrinciplesNatural JusticePatent ProsecutionPublic Order And MoralityTrade MarksITC Limited v. Nestle India Limited
Common, laudatory or descriptive expressions used across an industry to denote the flavour or quality of a product cannot be monopolised by a single trader as a trade mark, even where that trader was the first to use the expressio…
Descriptive MarksGeneric MarksGoodwillPassing OffPatentsK.K. Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
A patentee claiming damages for infringement of a standard-essential patent must prove infringement through evidence tested at trial and must prove that its royalty rate is FRAND, ordinarily through comparable licences; exhaustion…
DamagesFRANDPatent ExhaustionPatent InfringementTrade MarksKaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories
An action for infringement of a registered trade mark is a statutory remedy in which the use of a deceptively similar mark is itself actionable regardless of get-up, packaging or intent to deceive, whereas an action for passing of…
Acquired DistinctivenessDeceptive SimilarityDescriptive MarksInfringementCopyrightM/s Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
An offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
Cognizable OffenceCopyright InfringementCriminal EnforcementFIRTrade MarksMahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
A trader may be restrained at the interim stage from adopting a corporate or trade name deceptively similar to a widely reputed name, even for a different line of business, where it is likely to cause confusion or suggest a trade …
Corporate NameDissimilar GoodsInterim InjunctionPassing OffTrade MarksMarico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited
A trade mark consisting of ordinary descriptive words remains vulnerable to a competitor's bona fide descriptive use under Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, notwithstanding registration; such a mark attains pr…
Descriptive MarksDistinctivenessGeneric MarksPassing OffTrade MarksMarriott Worldwide Corporation v. Hotel Marriot Prime & Anr.
Where a defendant fails to contest a commercial suit despite service and a subsisting interim injunction, a court may grant summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure without recording oral evidence; and a …
DamagesDeceptive SimilarityPassing OffTrademark Infringement