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.
50 results
for “SUPREME”
American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Private Limited & Anr.
A proprietor may validly register a mark proposed to be used through a registered user, and such a registration is not liable to removal for non-use merely because the proprietor itself has not used the mark.
Foreign ProprietorNon-useProposed UseRectificationTrade MarksAmritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
Deceptive similarity between trade marks must be assessed by comparing the marks as a whole for their overall phonetic, visual and structural resemblance, from the standpoint of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recol…
AcquiescenceDeceptive SimilarityHonest Concurrent UseImperfect RecollectionOtherAnil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.
A celebrity's personality and publicity rights, reinforced by the constitutional right to privacy, protect against unauthorised commercial exploitation of name, image, voice and likeness, including through emerging technologies su…
AI And DeepfakesDomain NamesDynamic InjunctionPersonality RightsPatentsAtomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr.
Where a groundless-threats suit under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970 and a later infringement suit concern the same patent dispute between the same parties, the Supreme Court may transfer the infringement suit so that both a…
ForumGroundless ThreatsMultiplicity of ProceedingsPatent InfringementPatentsBajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd.
In trade mark, copyright and patent suits, the hearing should proceed on a day-to-day basis and the final judgment should normally be delivered within four months from the filing of the suit, rather than the litigation remaining a…
Case ManagementExpeditious TrialInterim InjunctionIP SuitsDesignsBharat 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 RegistrationNoveltyOriginalityPatentsBishwanath 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 RevocationTrade 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 SimilarityTrade MarksCorn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.
In opposition proceedings, the reputation of a trade mark for assessing likelihood of confusion attaches to the mark itself and not merely to the reputation of the proprietor; deceptive similarity may be found even between goods t…
Deceptive SimilarityGoods Of Same DescriptionOppositionReputation Of MarkCopyrightCryogas Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Inox India Limited & Ors.
Whether an artistic work is a design capable of registration under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, so as to lose copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 upon industrial reproduction beyond fifty …
Artistic WorkCopyright Design OverlapFunctionalityIndustrial Reproduction