The Indian pharmaceutical industry is a major manufacturer of cost-effective generic drugs and is set to become the leading exporter of generic pharmaceutical products.

The commercial exploitation of a patent is not mandatory in any patent law jurisdiction. But if you wait too long

One of the universally accepted criterions for the grant of patent is that it should not be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Accordingly, Section 2 (ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 while defining inventive step mandates that the invention should not be obvious. In K.Ramu v. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Muthulakshmi Bhavan 2007 (34) PTC 689 (Mad) the defendant raised the question of obviousness of two inventions in a patent infringement action.

The prevailing intellectual property scenario is infused with litigation hovering around the well-established tenets of deceptive similarity and passing off.

The trouble faced by some of the most well established trademark owners is the fear of a deceptively similar mark emerging in the market.

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., moved an ad-interim application for the action of passing off under the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1999, where in the Macleods Pharmaceuticalss sought an injunction from the court, to restrain the Tidal Laboratories from using the impugned trade mark "Rabemax" or any other mark bearing similarity to the Macleods Pharmaceuticals’s mark "Rabemac".

In the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Leuci Communication and Ors, Larsen and Toubro, the Plaintiff/Appellant brought a suit against the Defendant/Respondent Company, Leuci Communications, for injunction, damages and delivery of the infringing material.

The trade name we use and the mark we see is what lends uniqueness to a trademark. To facilitate this, not only do establishments create patterns and designs, but also play with words, creating expressions that one may not have else put to normal usage.

The case of Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Super Thread Industries & Ors 2007 (34) PTC 614 (IPAB) started when Super Thread Industries/Respondents filed an application in 1988 for registration of the mark "PONY" in class 23 in respect of yarns and threads.

The Law of passing off prevents misrepresentation to the public in the course of use of unregistered marks.

One of the frequently adopted tactics employed by the defendant is non-appearance or evasion of Court proceedings. Retention of account is one of the major grounds for relief and the most celebrated way of avoiding the same is through non-appearance. But, presently the Judiciary has formulated principles to place check on these tactics.

India and European Union have embarked on a bilateral trade & investment agreement, which envisages liberalization of trade in Goods, Investment & Service and higher protection for Intellectual Property Rights including Geographical Indications.

The Copyright Act, 1957, provides for a rectification of the register, under S. 50. The section reads:

In the recent case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd & another v/s Radheshyam Singh & another, a District Court in New Delhi restrained the defendant from using the marks which were deceptively similar to...

Jurisdiction is undoubtedly the most important consideration while filling a suit. Being, a subject incorporated in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the issue presented itself forth the Delhi High Court in the case of "Shaw Wallace v. M.P. Beer Products" [2009 (39) PTC 129].

The Delhi High Court adjudicated upon a cancellation petition filed by GSK Consumer Healthcare predicated upon the phonetic, visual, and structural similarities between the plaintiff's mark OTRIVIN / OTRINOZ and the mark OTRINIR, owned by Celebrity Biopharma.

When an Appeal is preferred before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks, the law does not allow the Appellant to produce any evidence that was not placed on record before the Registrar while passing the original order.

Issues of passing off and copyright violation shadow the Indian litigation scenario today more than ever before.

Reckitt Benickser in an attempt to transfer proceedings pending forth the Controller, moved to the High Court of Delhi vide “Reckitt Benickser Australia Pty. Ltd. and Anr. v. R.N. Impex and Ors.” [2008 (37) 262 (Del)].

The common law offence of passing off has occupied a prominent place in trade mark litigation.