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.
Natera Inc. & Anr. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The exclusion of diagnostic methods from patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970 applies without distinction between in vivo and in vitro processes, and covers a method whose complete specification and final clai…
BiotechnologyClaim ConstructionPatent ProsecutionSection 3(i)DesignsNEC Corporation & Ors. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
A graphical user interface is not per se excluded from registration as a design under Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000; the requirement that a design be applied to an article by an industrial process must be constru…
Copyright Design OverlapDesign RegistrationDigital PlatformsNoveltyTrade MarksNeon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors.
Under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, actual continuous prior use of a mark in the market prevails over a rival's earlier-dated application for registration where the registrant remained inactive for a prolonged period; t…
Deceptive SimilarityNon-usePassing OffPrior UserTrade MarksNew Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors.
Registration of a mark is no defence to a passing off action, since rights under Section 27(2) are independent of and override the bar in Section 28(3) on one registered proprietor suing another for infringement. Registration mere…
Anti-Dissection RuleDeceptive SimilarityInitial Interest ConfusionPassing OffPatentsNippon A&L Inc. v. The Controller of Patents
An amendment restricting product-by-process claims to process-only claims is permissible under Section 59 where it narrows rather than broadens the scope of the claims as originally filed and remains within matter already disclose…
Claim AmendmentPatent ProsecutionProduct By Process ClaimsSection 59PatentsNovartis AG v. Union of India & Ors.
Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 imposes a distinct and higher threshold of patentability for new forms of known substances, over and above the ordinary tests of novelty and inventive step. A new form of a known substance mus…
EfficacyEvergreeningInventive StepKnown SubstanceCopyrightOpella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Copyright)
A defendant cannot defend a copyright infringement suit on the basis of a registration that has been cancelled by an unchallenged rectification order which found the artistic work to be a copy of the plaintiff's pre-existing get-u…
Artistic WorkColourable ImitationCopyright RectificationLabel DesignTrade MarksOpella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Trade Marks)
Where a coordinate bench, following an unchallenged rectification order, has found the mark in question deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the infri…
Deceptive SimilarityPassing OffPharmaceutical MarksPrior UsePatentsOpenTV Inc. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The exclusion of business methods under Section 3(k) is absolute and unqualified, unlike the per se qualification applicable to computer programmes; the true nature of a claim is determined by its substance rather than its form or…
Business MethodClaim AmendmentComputer Related InventionsSection 3(k)Trade MarksParle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Where two parties file competing applications for registration of an identical or deceptively similar trade mark on a proposed-to-be-used basis, priority for registration under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is determined…
Approbation and ReprobationPrior RegistrationPriorityProposed to be UsedBrowse by Act and section
Every case is linked to the statutory provisions it interprets.