Trace Your Case

Menu

Author: admin

Categories
Patents

BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co. (C.L.A. No. 1 of 2013)

ISSUE:

Whether delayed/absent communications between the Applicant and the Patentee could be considered an irregularity in due procedure?

RULE:

In considering the application field under Section 84(6)(iv) of the Patents Act 1970, the Controller shall consider as to whether the applicant has made efforts to obtain a licence from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period as the Controller may deem fit.

Additionally, section 61 of the Competition Act 2002, provides for exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts which states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Patents

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511

ISSUE:

Whether the Plaintiff’s invention involved an inventive step in regard to what was previously known or used prior to the date of the patent?

RULE:

The principle of prior art, which began in the 1950s, states that all claimed inventions can only be granted patents given that they pass a test of innovation. Claimed inventions are only presumed to be patentable unless and until the examiner establishes a prima facie evidence that the invention consists of obviousness and knowledge prior to that of the said claim.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Trademark

Balkrishna Hatcheries v. Nando’s Intl Ltd., 2007 (35) PTC 295

ISSUE:

Whether the court should grant injunction to prohibit Defendant to open a restaurant under the name “Nando’s”?

Sub issues-

Whether Nandu’s and Nando’s are similar marks?

Whether the goods and service they provide are identical or similar?

RULE:

The rule of law applied in the case of Balkrishna Hatcheries v Nandos International Ltd 2007 is that in order to succeed in a claim for trademark infringement, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant's use of the trademark is likely to cause confusion amongst consumers.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Patents

Bilkis v. Kappos 561 U.S. 593 (2010)

ISSUE:

Whether the machine-or-transformation test is the only test for patent eligibility under § 101 of the Patent Act?
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in applying the machine-or-transformation test?

RULE:

The machine-or-transformation test is a doctrine requiring an invention to be tied to a machine or an apparatus, following which the invention must transform an article from one state to the other.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Copyright

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. 714 F. 2d 1240

ISSUE:

Whether computer software, specifically an operating system, is protected by copyright under US law?

Whether duplicating another company's software for compatibility purposes, as done by Franklin Computer Corporation, is a breach of copyright law, even if it is necessary for compatibility?

RULE:

Under the US law, computer software, including operating systems, is eligible for copyright protection. This safeguard guarantees the developer sole ownership of the software's reproduction, distribution, and use. Compatibility concerns do not justify direct copying of software, and such copying may constitute a violation of copyright, regardless of the desire to ensure compatibility.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Trademark

Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo, AIR 1963 SC 449

ISSUE:

Whether the mark, “Lakshmandhara”, was likely to deceive and cause confusion under section 8 and section 10 of the Trademark Act?

Whether there was any acquiescence for “Lakshmandhara”, as to bring it under special circumstances, mentioned in section 10(2) of the Trademark Act?

RULE:

The rule of law applied in the case of Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satyadeo AIR 1963 is that trademarks which are deceptively similar to existing trademarks are not registrable. This is to protect consumers from confusion and protect the rights of trademark owners. The standard of comparison between similar trademarks is to be adopted by judging the resemblance from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Patents

Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)

ISSUE:

Whether claims regarding computer implemented inventions, including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter?

RULE:

35 United States Code, Section 101 requires that whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention must have it patented and must be granted only one patent for the same. This prevents unnecessary patenting of inventions thereafter.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Trademark

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World Inc. 461 F.2d 1040 (2d Cir. 1972)

ISSUE:

Whether the word "safari" alone can be validly registered as a trademark?

Whether summary judgements may be granted on the Defendant's use of the word "safari"?

RULE:

The Doctrine of Trademark Incapacity states that a word that was once generic is denied trademark protection, even if consumers perceive the word or term as a source signifying. This Doctrine is put in place in order to avoid unnecessary and illogical trademarks from being granted.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Statutory Regimes

Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3836

ISSUE:

Whether making Executive Summaries of the EIA available 30 days before the Public Hearing was necessary?

Whether the Principle of Natural Justice was violated by virtue of the chair of EAC being one who was the Director of four mining companies?

RULE:

The ‘Precautionary Principle’, widely used in determining the outcome, states that where there is a threat to severe or irreversible damage to the environment, there must be immediate action, and a lack of scientific assurance should not and cannot be the reason to avoid taking action.

The Principle of Natural Justice based on the theories of fairness and equity states that every person must be given a fair opportunity to be heard, and no decision must be taken without doing the same.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Writ Remedy

Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647

ISSUE:

Whether tanneries should be permitted to continue business at the expense of the environment and health of neighbouring individuals?

RULE:

The ‘Precautionary Principle’, widely used in determining the outcome, states that where there is a threat of severe or irreversible damage to the environment, there must be immediate action, and a lack of scientific
assurance should not and cannot be the reason to avoid taking action.

The ‘Polluter Pays’ principle has also been employed in the present case, which states that the individual or party responsible for causing pollution must bear the costs of all damage done to the environment and the human population affected. The two principles, which originated from the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (the OSPAR Convention), were incorporated in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to protection of life and personal liberty.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here