Information on this blog is being shared only for the purpose of creating legal awareness in public at large, especially in the field of Intellectual Property Right. As there may be possibility of error, omission or mistake in legal interpretation on the contents of this blog, it should not be treated as substitute for legal advise.
Friday, March 14, 2025
Black Diamond Track Parts Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Black Diamond Motors Private Limited
Ramji Lal Agarwal Vs. Sourav Agarwal
Thursday, March 13, 2025
Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam Vs Hindustan Metal Industries
Dr. Smita Naram Vs. Registrar of Trademarks
Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] ,High Court of Delhi
Ciena Corporation Vs Union of India
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
Johnson & Johnson Vs. Pritamdas Arora
Fact of the Case
Johnson & Johnson, a global healthcare company, filed a suit against Pritamdas Arora and others for trade mark infringement, counterfeiting, and passing off. The case arose when a counterfeit version of Johnson & Johnson's surgical hemostatic device, SURGICEL, was discovered in a U.S. hospital. Investigations traced the source back to the defendants in India, who were allegedly manufacturing and distributing counterfeit SURGICEL products globally.
Procedural Background (in brief)
In 2019, Johnson & Johnson filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. In October 2019, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction against the defendants and appointed Local Commissioners to search and seize counterfeit products. Between November 2019 and April 2024, multiple court orders were issued, directing investigations and reports on the defendants' whereabouts as they became untraceable. The defendants failed to comply with court orders and were declared ex-parte in December 2022. Between April 2023 and February 2025, the plaintiff provided substantial evidence of counterfeiting, including invoices, bank records, and seized counterfeit goods. In March 2025, the Court pronounced its judgment, ruling in favor of Johnson & Johnson.
Reasoning of the Court
The plaintiff established proprietary rights over the trade marks ‘SURGICEL’, ‘ETHICON’, and ‘LIGACLIP’. Evidence proved that the defendants were engaged in manufacturing and selling counterfeit surgical devices. The defendants' actions endangered public health by distributing substandard medical devices. The Court noted the defendants’ evasion of legal proceedings, fraudulent activities, and involvement in money laundering. The defendants’ conduct warranted stringent action, including compensatory and exemplary damages.
Decision
A permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendants from using Johnson & Johnson’s trademarks. The Court awarded compensatory damages of ₹2,34,82,986 in favor of the plaintiff. Exemplary damages of ₹1,00,00,000 were imposed on the defendants. The plaintiff was permitted to destroy the counterfeit products. The plaintiff was also entitled to recover actual litigation costs.
Case Details
Tuesday, March 11, 2025
Jangeer Singh Vs. Yogesh Jangid
Fact of the Case
The case involves a trademark dispute between Jangeer Singh, trading as Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works, and Yogesh Jangid, trading as Jangid Agro Engineering. The plaintiff, Jangeer Singh, alleged that the defendant was infringing and passing off his registered trademark "JANGEER" by using the marks "JANGID" and "JANGIR" for similar agricultural implements. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs. The defendant, however, claimed prior use of the mark "JANGID" as part of his family business since 1980 and argued that his use was bona fide.
Procedural Background in Brief
The plaintiff filed the suit seeking interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Summons were issued on August 31, 2022, but no ad interim injunction was granted. The defendant submitted that he was neither using nor intending to use "JANGEER/JANGIR." The matter was subsequently listed multiple times, and the judgment on the interim injunction was reserved on February 24, 2025.
Reasoning of Court
The Court analyzed the claims of both parties, focusing on the registered trademarks, prior usage, and potential deceptive similarity between the marks. It observed that both parties held trademark registrations, making an infringement claim non-maintainable under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The Court also examined whether the defendant’s use of "JANGID" was bona fide under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act and concluded that the defendant had established genuine prior use of the mark based on his father's business records dating back to 1980. Additionally, the Court found that the marks "JANGEER" and "JANGID" were visually distinct, reducing the likelihood of confusion.
Decision
The Court denied the plaintiff’s request for an interim injunction and directed that the defendant may continue using the mark "JANGID" but only in the exact manner of his registered device mark. The defendant was restrained from using "JANGIR" or "JANGEER" as standalone marks. The case was listed for framing of issues on July 28, 2025.
Case Title: Jangeer Singh Vs. Yogesh JangidDate of Order: March 11, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 598/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1587
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Justice Shri Amit Bansal
Monday, March 10, 2025
BASF SE Vs. Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
Lack of inventive step and insufficiency in disclosure are anti thesis to each other. A Patent can not be revoked simultaneously on both grounds
Introduction:
The case of BASF SE Vs. Joint Controller of Patents revolves around the patentability of an invention filed by BASF SE. The dispute concerns the rejection of a patent application by the Indian Patent Office and the legal questions surrounding the inventive step, novelty, and sufficiency of disclosure.
Detailed Factual Background:
BASF SE, a multinational chemical company, filed a patent application seeking protection for a particular chemical formulation. The application was examined by the Patent Office, and objections were raised under various provisions of the Patents Act, 1970. The objections primarily pertained to lack of inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure.
Upon responding to the objections, the applicant faced further rejections from the Patent Office, leading to an appeal before the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the High Court. The core contention was whether the invention met the statutory requirements for patentability under Indian law.
Detailed Procedural Background:
The patent application was initially examined by the Controller of Patents, who issued an examination report citing prior art references that allegedly anticipated the invention. The applicant responded to these objections, arguing that the cited prior art did not disclose or suggest the claimed invention in an obvious manner.
Despite the applicant’s submissions, the Controller of Patents rejected the application on the grounds of lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. BASF SE then filed an appeal before the IPD, challenging the rejection and arguing that the decision failed to properly appreciate the technical advancement offered by the invention.
Issues Involved in the Case:
Whether the invention claimed by BASF SE involved an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. Whether the prior art cited by the Controller of Patents disclosed or suggested the claimed invention. Whether the sufficiency of disclosure requirement under Section 10 of the Patents Act was met by the patent application. Whether the rejection by the Controller was justified based on the evidence and arguments presented.
Detailed Submission of Parties Submission by BASF SE:
The appellant argued that the invention demonstrated a significant improvement over prior art and was not obvious to a person skilled in the field. The prior art references cited by the Patent Office did not render the invention obvious, as they failed to teach the unique combination of components claimed in the application. The sufficiency of disclosure requirement was fulfilled, as the specification provided adequate details for a skilled person to work the invention without undue experimentation. The rejection of the application was based on an incorrect assessment of inventive step and an improper interpretation of prior art references.
Submission by the Joint Controller of Patents:
The respondent maintained that the invention lacked an inventive step as it was an obvious modification of known prior art. The disclosure was insufficient, as it did not enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention without undue effort. The Controller exercised proper discretion in rejecting the application based on statutory provisions and relevant case laws.
Detailed Discussion on Judgments and Their Citations:
The parties cited multiple precedents in support of their arguments, including Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 1 – Cited by the respondent to argue that mere improvements in known substances do not qualify as inventive. Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries (1979) 2 SCC 511 – Referred by the appellant to argue that an inventive step must be assessed in light of the technical advancement over prior art. Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Alloys Wobben (2014) 5 SCC 590 – Discussed in relation to sufficiency of disclosure and the need for clear and complete specifications.
The Court analyzed these judgments in the context of the case, emphasizing the need for a proper assessment of inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure as per statutory requirements.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
The Court examined whether the prior art references, when considered as a whole, would render the claimed invention obvious to a skilled person. It concluded that the claimed invention provided a technical advancement that was not obvious from the cited prior art. The Controller’s decision did not adequately address the technical contribution of the invention. The sufficiency of disclosure was met, as the description in the patent application was found to be enabling for a skilled person. Lack of inventive step and insufficiency in disclosure are anti thesis to each other. A Patent can not be revoked simultaneously on both grounds.The rejection was based on an erroneous interpretation of inventive step and lacked a detailed consideration of the applicant’s submissions.
Final Decision:
The Court set aside the rejection order of the Controller of Patents and directed the Patent Office to grant the patent, subject to compliance with formal requirements.
Law Settled in This Case:
The case reaffirmed the principles governing the assessment of inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act, 1970. It clarified that an invention should be assessed for its technical contribution and advancement over prior art. A proper analysis of inventive step must consider whether a skilled person would arrive at the claimed invention without inventive ingenuity. The sufficiency of disclosure must be evaluated in light of whether a skilled person can practice the invention based on the description provided.Lack of inventive step and insufficiency in disclosure are anti thesis to each other. A Patent can not be revoked simultaneously on both grounds.
Case Title: BASF SE Vs. Joint Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors.
Date of Order: March 7, 2025
Case Number: IPDPTA/5/2024
Name of Court: Calcutta High Court
Hon’ble Judge: Hon'ble Justice Shri Ravi Krishan Kapur
VST Industries Limited Vs. ASD Tobacco Private Limited
Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Dr. Dhan Singh
Bayer Corporation Vs. Union of India
BOLAR PROVISION:Section 107 A of Patent Act 1970:Section 107A permits the sale and export of patented drugs for regulatory approval in other countries and for research purpose only.
Introduction:
The case of Bayer Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors., decided by the Delhi High Court on April 22, 2019, concerns the interpretation of Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, commonly known as the "Bolar provision."
The central issue in this case was whether the sale or export of a patented drug for the purpose of regulatory approval in another country constitutes patent infringement.
Bayer Corporation, a multinational pharmaceutical company, filed legal proceedings against Natco Pharma and Alembic Pharmaceuticals, challenging their export of patented drugs under Section 107A. The case is significant for its impact on the pharmaceutical industry, particularly concerning the balance between patent rights and the promotion of generic medicines.
Factual Background:
Bayer Corporation held a patent for Sorafenib Tosylate, a drug used to treat kidney and liver cancer, under Patent No. 215758. In 2011, Natco Pharma applied for a compulsory license under Section 84 of the Patents Act, which was granted in 2012 by the Patent Controller. The license allowed Natco to manufacture and sell the drug in India at an affordable price. However, Bayer filed a writ petition when it discovered that Natco was also exporting Sorafenib Tosylate outside India, arguing that this was beyond the scope of the compulsory license.
Simultaneously, Alembic Pharmaceuticals was manufacturing and exporting Rivaroxaban, another patented drug, for regulatory purposes. Bayer filed a suit against Alembic, alleging that its export of Rivaroxaban infringed Bayer’s patent rights. Alembic contended that the exports were covered under Section 107A, which allows the sale of patented products solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law.
Procedural Background:
Bayer initially filed a suit against Natco in 2011, seeking an injunction against the sale and export of Sorafenib Tosylate. The Patent Controller granted a compulsory license to Natco in 2012. Bayer then approached the Delhi High Court, seeking to prevent Natco from exporting the drug.
In parallel, Bayer filed a suit against Alembic in 2016, seeking an injunction against the export of Rivaroxaban. During the proceedings, Alembic argued that its exports were permissible under Section 107A.
The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of Natco and Alembic, holding that Section 107A permitted the sale and export of patented drugs for regulatory purposes. Bayer appealed the decision, leading to the present judgment by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Issues Involved in the Case:
The primary issue in this case was whether Section 107A of the Patents Act permits the export of patented drugs for the purpose of obtaining regulatory approvals in other countries?
Whether the word "sale" in Section 107A includes export or is limited to sales within India?
Whether the acts of Natco and Alembic constituted infringement under Section 48 of the Patents Act.
Whether the purpose of Section 107A was to facilitate only the Indian market or to allow global generic competition.
Whether the burden of proof lay on the patent holder (Bayer) or the generic manufacturers (Natco and Alembic) to prove the intended use of the patented product.
Submissions of the Parties:
Bayer argued that Section 107A is an exception to the patentee's rights under Section 48 and should be interpreted narrowly. Bayer contended that the provision does not explicitly mention "export," and therefore, sale under this section should be restricted to India. Bayer further relied on foreign precedents, including the U.S. Bolar exemption and German and Polish case law, to argue that the sale of a patented drug for regulatory purposes should be limited to the domestic market. Bayer emphasized that allowing exports under Section 107A would contravene the TRIPS Agreement and international patent norms.
Natco and Alembic countered that Section 107A allows the sale of patented products for the purpose of developing and submitting regulatory information in other countries. They argued that the plain language of the provision does not restrict sale to India. They also pointed out that regulatory authorities in many countries require local clinical trials, which necessitate the export of the drug. They cited WTO rulings and global practices to support their interpretation.
Discussion on Judgments and Citations:
The court examined the legislative intent behind Section 107A and compared it with similar provisions in other jurisdictions. The court relied on the WTO Dispute Settlement Panel's ruling in the Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products case (WTO/DS114/R), which upheld the Bolar exemption. The court also referred to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Merck v. Integra Lifesciences (545 U.S. 193), which interpreted the American Bolar exemption broadly.
Additionally, the court considered the decision in Intermedics Inc. v. Ventritex (775 F. Supp. 1269), which allowed the export of patented products for regulatory approval. The court rejected Bayer’s reliance on German and Polish case law, holding that Indian law provides a broader exemption than those jurisdictions.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
The court held that the plain meaning of Section 107A does not restrict "sale" to India and that the term includes exports.
It observed that the provision was intended to facilitate the development of generic medicines globally and that restricting sales to India would defeat this purpose. The court noted that requiring generic manufacturers to conduct separate trials in each country would be impractical and contrary to international trade practices.
The court also rejected Bayer’s argument that the burden of proof should be on the generic manufacturers. It held that placing the burden on the patentee to prove wrongful use was consistent with international norms and would prevent unnecessary litigation.
The court further reasoned that allowing exports under Section 107A was consistent with India’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, as it did not unreasonably prejudice the patent holder’s rights. The court emphasized that regulatory approvals are necessary for timely market entry and that a restrictive interpretation of Section 107A would hinder access to affordable medicines.
Final Decision:
The Delhi High Court upheld the Single Judge’s ruling and dismissed Bayer’s appeal.
The court held that Section 107A permits the sale and export of patented drugs for regulatory approval in other countries and for research purpose only.
It ruled that Bayer had failed to establish that Natco and Alembic’s actions amounted to infringement.
The court also directed that Bayer’s patents could not be used to block exports of drugs intended solely for regulatory purposes.
Law Settled in This Case
The judgment clarified that Section 107A of the Patents Act includes the right to export patented drugs for regulatory approval. The decision reinforced that patent rights are subject to reasonable exceptions aimed at promoting public health and access to medicines. The ruling also established that the burden of proof lies on the patentee to prove infringement rather than on the generic manufacturer to justify its actions.
Case Details:
Bajaj Electricals Limited Vs Metals & Allied Products
The plaintiff's sales grew significantly, with revenues climbing to ₹73.94 crores by 1986. Bajaj's products were heavily advertised, gaining substantial market recognition.
The defendants, Metals & Allied Products, began manufacturing kitchen utensils in 1976-77 and allegedly used the "Bajaj" mark since then. In February 1977, they applied to register the mark for stainless steel utensils under Class 21, but this application was deemed abandoned. A subsequent application for registration was filed in 1984. Despite this, the defendants continued using the mark and claimed their surname "Bajaj" entitled them to do so.
During this hearing, the defendants claimed their use of the mark since 1976, producing invoices, affidavits, and certificates from traders. The Single Judge eventually ruled against granting a full injunction but ordered the defendants to modify their branding to prominently display the manufacturer’s name along with the “Bajaj” mark.
Issues Involved in the Case:
- Whether the defendants' use of the mark "Bajaj" constituted passing off.
- Whether the defendants had established prior use of the mark dating back to 1977.
- Whether the defendants’ use of the mark, even if honest, was likely to cause deception or confusion.
- Whether the defendants' claim of using their family name in trade was legitimate.
- They had established significant goodwill and reputation for their products under the "Bajaj" mark.
- The defendants had deliberately adopted the mark to take advantage of this reputation.
- The defendants' use of the mark, combined with misleading statements in their brochure, was evidence of bad faith.
- The invoices produced by the defendants were dubious and possibly fabricated.
The defendants contended that:
- They had been using the mark “Bajaj” since 1976 and had made applications for its registration.
- The mark was derived from the surname of the partners, which entitled them to use it in trade.
- Their products differed from those of the plaintiffs, reducing the likelihood of confusion.
- They had obtained certifications from traders and had been using stickers bearing the “Bajaj” name since 1979.
The court also referred to Joseph Rodgers & Sons Ltd. v. W.N. Rodgers & Co. [(1924) 41 R.P.C. 277], which emphasized that even honest use of one’s name could be restrained if it resulted in consumer deception.
The court examined Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, which highlights that once bad faith or intent to deceive is established, the user cannot claim a defense based on their right to use a family name.
The court found that the defendants’ brochure, which claimed “Bajaj quality is well accepted internationally,” was misleading since the defendants had no presence in international markets. This was considered evidence of deliberate misrepresentation.
- The plaintiffs had established substantial goodwill and reputation in the "Bajaj" mark.
- The defendants’ claims of long-standing use were unsubstantiated; the invoices presented were suspicious and lacked credibility.
- The fact that the defendants had issued a misleading brochure in 1987 further evidenced bad faith.
- The defense of using one’s surname in trade could not justify conduct that created confusion among consumers.
- The defendants' attempt to differentiate their mark through changes in font and capital letters was insufficient to prevent consumer deception.
B.L. And Co. And Others Vs. Pfizer Products Inc.
Introduction: The case of B.L. And Co. And Others vs. Pfizer Products Inc. revolves around the alleged passing off of the drug 'VIAGRA' by the defendants through their product 'PENEGRA'. The dispute primarily concerns the deceptive similarity in trade names, trade dress, and product appearance. Pfizer, the plaintiff, sought an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and marketing 'PENEGRA', claiming that it infringed upon its global reputation and goodwill associated with 'VIAGRA'. The case was heard before the Delhi High Court, which passed an ex parte injunction against the defendants, leading to an appeal.
Factual Background:Pfizer, a global pharmaceutical company, introduced 'VIAGRA' (sildenafil citrate) in 1998 for the treatment of male erectile dysfunction. The trade mark 'VIAGRA' was registered in various jurisdictions and had pending registration in India. Pfizer contended that the brand had achieved international recognition and had been extensively advertised worldwide, including in India.
The defendants, B.L. & Co. and Others, introduced a similar product under the name 'PENEGRA' in January 2001. The plaintiff discovered the existence of 'PENEGRA' through an internet search and media reports, which referred to it as 'Indian VIAGRA'. Pfizer alleged that the defendants intentionally adopted a deceptively similar trade name and trade dress, including the distinctive blue diamond-shaped tablet. Further, the defendants had allegedly copied elements from Pfizer's website onto their own, thereby misleading consumers and capitalizing on Pfizer's goodwill.
Procedural Background:Pfizer filed a suit for injunction and damages for passing off before the Delhi High Court. On June 1, 2001, the Single Judge granted an ex parte injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling 'PENEGRA' or any product deceptively similar to 'VIAGRA'. The appellants challenged this order before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on multiple grounds, including the alleged failure of the Single Judge to consider crucial legal principles governing the grant of ex parte injunctions.
Issues Involved in the Case:
Whether the trade mark 'PENEGRA' was deceptively similar to 'VIAGRA'?
Whether Pfizer, despite not selling 'VIAGRA' in India, could claim passing off based on trans-border reputation?
Whether the Single Judge’s grant of an ex parte injunction was justified?
Whether there was undue delay by Pfizer in filing the suit, and if so, whether it impacted its right to relief?
Whether the balance of convenience favored the defendants, considering their established market presence?
Submissions of the Parties Plaintiff (Pfizer):
'VIAGRA' had acquired immense international goodwill and reputation, extending to India despite not being directly marketed.
The defendants deliberately chose the name 'PENEGRA' to deceive consumers and exploit the reputation of 'VIAGRA'.
The distinctive blue diamond-shaped tablet had been copied, further contributing to the likelihood of confusion.
The copying of website content demonstrated mala fide intent.
The principles of passing off allowed Pfizer to protect its brand even in jurisdictions where it had not commenced commercial operations.
Defendants (B.L. & Co. and Others):
'PENEGRA' was developed independently after extensive research and clinical trials.
The product had been in the market for over five months before the suit was filed, indicating delay on Pfizer's part.
The pronunciation and spelling of 'PENEGRA' were distinct from 'VIAGRA', and the packaging and branding were different.
The balance of convenience lay in favor of the defendants, as they had invested significantly in product development and marketing.
Pfizer’s product was not marketed in India, and hence, there was no possibility of deception or passing off.
Discussion on Judgments and Citations
Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 (Supp) SCC 727: The Supreme Court held that interlocutory injunctions should balance the need to protect the plaintiff's rights against the defendant’s legitimate business operations. The High Court referred to this case in assessing the necessity of the injunction.
N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, 1996 PTC (16) 583 (SC): The Supreme Court upheld passing off claims based on trans-border reputation, which Pfizer relied upon.
Daimler Benz Aktiegesellscaft v. Hybo Hindustan, 1994 PTC 287: The Delhi High Court protected the reputation of international brands, even in the absence of direct business operations in India.
The Financial Times Ltd. v. Evening Standard Co. Ltd. (1991) FSR 7: A case concerning delay in seeking an injunction, which was used by the defendants to argue against Pfizer's claim.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge The Division Bench found that the Single Judge failed to consider critical factors before granting an ex parte injunction. These included:
The defendants had been manufacturing and marketing 'PENEGRA' for over five months before Pfizer took action.
Pfizer had knowledge of the defendants’ activities but delayed seeking legal recourse, indicating acquiescence.
The lack of availability of 'VIAGRA' in India weakened Pfizer’s claim of passing off.
The Single Judge did not record reasons justifying the urgency required for an ex parte injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
The Bench noted that an interlocutory injunction should be granted only after hearing both parties unless the object of the injunction would be defeated by delay. In the absence of specific reasons recorded by the Single Judge, the ex parte order was deemed unsustainable.
Final Decision The Division Bench set aside the ex parte injunction granted by the Single Judge, allowing the defendants to continue manufacturing and marketing 'PENEGRA'. However, the defendants undertook to change the tablet’s color and refrain from using website content copied from Pfizer’s site. They were also directed to maintain records of production and sales.
Law Settled in This Case
Ex parte injunctions must be granted only when justified by urgency, with reasons explicitly recorded under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
Delay in seeking relief is a crucial factor against granting an interlocutory injunction in passing off cases.
Trans-border reputation can be a valid basis for a passing off claim, but its application depends on the facts of each case.
Balance of convenience must be weighed carefully, especially when the defendant has an established market presence.
Blog Archive
- July 2025 (33)
- June 2025 (93)
- May 2025 (118)
- April 2025 (91)
- March 2025 (148)
- February 2025 (116)
- January 2025 (58)
- October 2024 (8)
- September 2024 (34)
- August 2024 (68)
- July 2024 (39)
- June 2024 (57)
- May 2024 (49)
- April 2024 (6)
- March 2024 (44)
- February 2024 (39)
- January 2024 (21)
- December 2023 (29)
- November 2023 (23)
- October 2023 (27)
- September 2023 (33)
- August 2023 (29)
- July 2023 (29)
- June 2023 (2)
- May 2023 (1)
- April 2023 (5)
- March 2023 (6)
- February 2023 (1)
- November 2022 (17)
- October 2022 (11)
- September 2022 (30)
- August 2022 (46)
- July 2022 (36)
- June 2022 (26)
- October 2020 (1)
- September 2020 (1)
- April 2020 (1)
- March 2020 (1)
- February 2020 (2)
- December 2019 (1)
- September 2019 (3)
- August 2019 (2)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (2)
- February 2019 (2)
- January 2019 (2)
- December 2018 (3)
- November 2018 (1)
- October 2018 (2)
- September 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (8)
- July 2018 (2)
- June 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (41)
- April 2018 (7)
- March 2018 (3)
- February 2018 (4)
- January 2018 (2)
- December 2017 (6)
- November 2017 (4)
- September 2017 (5)
- August 2017 (6)
- July 2017 (1)
- June 2017 (1)
- May 2017 (10)
- April 2017 (16)
- November 2016 (3)
- October 2016 (24)
- March 2015 (2)
- January 2014 (1)
- December 2013 (4)
- October 2013 (2)
- September 2013 (7)
- August 2013 (27)
- May 2013 (7)
- September 2012 (31)
- December 2009 (3)
- September 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (2)
- December 2008 (1)
Featured Post
WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING
WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK REGISTRA...
-
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 1307/2016 M/S. KHUSHI RAM...
-
Species patents following a Markush patent must demonstrate a distinct inventive step Introduction The AstraZeneca AB & Anr. Vs. Intas ...
My Blog List
-
शक्ति का भ्रमजाल" - शहर के बीचोंबीच एक आलीशान इमारत थी — "अहंकार टावर्स"। इसके पेंटहाउस में रहते थे रविरंजन नारायण, जिन्हें सब रावण बाबू कहते थे। क्यों? क्योंकि वो दस चीज़ों म...1 day ago
-
IPL:Spice In, Nationality Out - I was sitting in my office. It was a hot afternoon. The fan was running slowly and making strange sounds like an old typewriter. Files were lying on my d...2 months ago
-
-
My other Blogging Links
- Ajay Amitabh Suman's Poem and Stories
- Facebook-My Judgments
- Katha Kavita
- Lawyers Club India Articles
- My Indian Kanoon Judgments
- Linkedin Articles
- Speaking Tree
- You Tube-Legal Discussion
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी -Facebook
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी -वर्ड प्रेस
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-दैनिक जागरण
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-नवभारत टाइम्स
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-ब्लॉग स्पॉट
- बेनाम कोहड़ा बाजारी-स्पीकिंग ट्री