#Intellectual Property

The Delhi High Court ruled that trademark infringement claims against an ex-licensee and its affiliates are arbitrable under the licence agreement as subordinate rights in personam, not rights in rem. Non-signatory affiliates are bound as persons claiming through the signatory, extending the arbitration clause to related entities.

The Bombay HC ordered rectification of LEFOXIN BIOX, holding it deceptively similar to Glaxo's 1956 LANOXIN mark under the stricter Cadila pharma test. Export sales constitute use in India under Section 56(1), but removal is deferred to December 31, 2026 for rebranding.

The Delhi High Court, hearing T-Mobile’s petition, ordered the Patent Office to use new guidelines for applying the Section 3(m) mental-act exclusion. The guidelines set evidentiary standards and steps to separate non-technical mental steps from patent-eligible inventions, affecting all software-related patent applicants and examiners.

The Delhi High Court restored the ‘BLUE CHIP’ trademark, holding that removal without the Section 25(3) notice is unlawful. It clarified that the renewal window under Rule 64(3) begins from the registration date, not the filing date. Trademark owners now have clearer protection against improper removal.

Delhi High Court ruled that a plaintiff can obtain a Section 12A exemption when a continuing IP infringement case demands urgent interim relief, permitting the court to order release of title deeds against cash security. This clarifies that mediation waiver is available for time-sensitive IP disputes, affecting commercial litigants seeking swift injunctive relief.

Kerala High Court rules that trademark registrations in different classes (goods vs services) do not immunize infringers from liability. The court emphasizes deceptive similarity, prior use, and passing off as key determinants, reinforcing that trademark protection extends beyond class boundaries where consumer confusion is likely.

Calcutta High Court sets aside a design registration order, ruling that novelty and prior publication under the Designs Act 2000 must be established through strict documentary proof and comparative analysis, not mere visual inspection. The case is remanded for re-adjudication, emphasizing the need for rigorous evidentiary standards in design cancellation proceedings.

MP High Court rules that fraudulent misrepresentation of branded goods constitutes a prima facie offence under IPC and Copyright Act, warranting criminal proceedings. Quashing under Section 482 CrPC is denied where allegations disclose cognizable offences, impacting manufacturers and brand owners facing counterfeit claims.

The Bombay High Court ruled that even verbal consent to use a registered trademark ceases automatically when the underlying partnership agreement is breached, reinforcing that trademark licensing cannot persist beyond the life of its foundational arrangement. This sets a critical precedent for franchisees, joint ventures, and informal brand collaborations in the F&B sector, where oral understandings are common but legally fragile.