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.
106 results
for “Appeal”
R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films & Ors.
Copyright protects only the particular form of expression of an idea, theme, subject matter or plot, and never the idea itself. Substantial similarity of theme between two works is not infringement if the treatment, incidents and …
Copyright InfringementDramatic WorkIdea-Expression DichotomyOriginalityPatentsRaytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs
Novel hardware is not a prerequisite for the patentability of a computer-related invention under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act; the applicable test is whether the claimed invention involves a technical advancement and provides a…
Computer Related InventionsPatent ProsecutionSection 3(k)Software PatentDesignsReckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd.
Prior publication of a design under Section 4(b) of the Designs Act, 2000 requires that the design, as applied to a specific article, be disclosed to the public with sufficient visual clarity to enable a person to perceive its sha…
CancellationDesign RegistrationNoveltyPrior PublicationTrade MarksRenaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai & Ors.
Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act applies only to marks used on dissimilar goods or services and cannot be invoked where the defendant's goods or services are identical to those of the registered proprietor, which instead falls…
Deceptive SimilarityDilutionSection 29(4)Trademark InfringementTrade MarksRuston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co.
Where the essential or dominant feature of a defendant's mark is deceptively similar to a registered trade mark, the addition of a descriptive, geographical or laudatory word does not by itself cure the infringement; for marks tha…
Composite MarksDeceptive SimilarityDominant MarkInfringementTrade MarksS. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai
Under the scheme of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the rights of a prior user of a trade mark are superior to the rights flowing from registration, and the statutory remedy of passing off under Section 27(2) remains available to a pri…
Deceptive SimilarityGoodwillPassing OffPrior UserTrade MarksS.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.
Not good law on the test of deceptive similarity: see Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001). Retained for its historical significance and its discussion of interim relief.
Deceptive SimilarityEssential FeaturesInterim InjunctionPICNICTrade MarksSatyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
A domain name has all the characteristics of a trade mark and is entitled to protection against passing off; the fact that the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not specifically legislate on domain names does not exclude a domain name fr…
Deceptive SimilarityDomain NamesGoodwillOnline InfringementPatentsSociete Des Produits Nestle SA v. The Controller of Patents and Design & Anr.
An appellate court hearing a challenge to refusal of a patent application has the same power as the Controller under Section 15 to permit amendment of claims, an appeal being a continuation of the original proceedings; a compositi…
Claim AmendmentInventive StepPatent ProsecutionSection 3(i)PatentsSulzer Mixpac AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Adjudication under the Patents Act has to be guided by the statute rather than by a mechanical, step-by-step application of judicial formulas. A patent decision cannot be overturned or deemed invalid solely because it did not stri…
Common Bar ElementInstallation BodyInventive StepObviousness