Tag Archives: ipab

Sections 124/125 and 47/57 of Trademarks Act are not mutually exclusive: SC

In an important ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified that during a civil suit if an aggrieved party does not approach the Tribunal for a decision on the issue of invalidity of trademark registration, the right to raise the … Continue reading

Posted in General Law, Intellectual Property Law, International Law, trademark, TRIPS | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Prior permission not necessary for rectification of registered trademark: DHC

In an important ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified that prior permission of the Court is not necessary under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) for rectification of a registered trademark during the pendency of a suit. … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, International Law, patent, patent law, plant varieties Act, Trade Law, trademark, traditional knowledge, TRIPS | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

IPAB members’ appointment provisions unconstitutional: MHC

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court struck down provisions of Intellectual Property Appellate Board appointments under the Trademarks Act as unconstitutional citing the violation of separation of powers and independence of judiciary by the government. The Court was … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative Law, Constitution Law, Intellectual Property Law, International Law, patent law, Trade Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

IPAB chides Trademark Registry…..again

Terming it a ‘classic case of official indifference’, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has asked the following “very relevant” general questions from Tardemark Registry: – 1) How even before the order was passed, the online status treated the mark as … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Revoked patent is not enforceable even though it remains on the Register: DHC

In an important patent law ruling, Delhi High Court held that once a patent has been revoked by an authority and no stay has been granted by the appellate authority, the said revoked patent is not enforceable even though it … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Opposition Board recommendations to be provided to patentee and opponent: IPAB

Intellectual Property Appellate Board ruled that whenever the Opposition Board makes recommendations under Section 25(3)(b) of the Patent Act in a post-grant opposition proceedings both the patentee and the opponent are entitled to know the contents of the recommendations before … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment