Sonam Lhamu Bhutia

The Infringement By Biju & Anr, Held To Be Blatant And Absolutely Unequivocal

The Intellectual Property Board Quashes A Complaint Pending Before The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC)

The Effect Of An Abandonment Order On The Pending Appeal Would Have To Be Considered By The IPAB On Merits

The Tea Board, India Loses Its Appeal Against The ITC - High Court Of Calcutta

Trial Court Decision Held "Not In Accordance With Law"- High Court Of Karnataka

Delhi High Court Dismisses Schreder S.A & Anr’s Interim Application.

For Offences U/S 63, 67 And 68 Of Copyright Act, There Is A Limitation Of 3 Years U/S 468 (2) (C) Cr.P.C. For Taking Cognizance.

"BILLI/CAT" Have No Connection With Measuring Tapes, Thus An Arbitrary Mark – Delhi High Court

Scan Biotech India & Another Successful In Establishing Infringement Of Its Trademark As Well As Infringement In Terms Of Section 29 (5), Trademark Act, 1999.

A Copyright Battle Between Sholay Media And Vodafone Essar – Delhi High Court

An Assignee Can Claim User As A Subsequent Proprietor Only If The Assignor Had A Right In The Mark

Fine Distinction To Be Made Between The Nature Of "Tenability" Of A Plea, While Considering A Temporary Injunction Motion On The One Hand , And For Stay Of Suit On The Other, While Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 124 Of The Trademarks Act, 1999

A Trader Or Manufacturer Will Not Become An Exclusive Owner, By Merely Acquiring Registration Of A Mark

Whether An Appeal As Against An Order In The Review Petition Is Maintainable?--- An IPAB Decision

No Injunction Granted For Alleged Passing Off And Infringement Of Copyright For Use Of "PERFECT ABS" And "AB PRO PLUS"

The Essential Nature Of Cyberspace Mandates Flexible And Efficient Judicial Remedies- High Court Of Bombay

The Delhi High Court Finds No Reason To Interfere With Decisions Of The IPAB And The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks

Assessing Whether Two Sets Of Goods Of Rival Parties Trading Under An Identical Mark Are Allied Or Related To Be Scrutinized More Closely, Than Earlier- High Court Of Calcutta

While Determining Whether Two Designs Are Identical Or Not, It Is Not Necessary That The Two Designs Be Exactly The Same

Reproduction Of Match Boxes For More Than 50 Times Over A Short Period Falls Under The Prohibition Of Section 15 (2), Copyright Act, 1957