Topic
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 Bombay High Court denied a stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act because the defendants neither pleaded invalidity of the plaintiff's registered marks in their written statement nor filed rectification proceedings before the High Court, opting instead for the Registrar. The ruling clarifies that both procedural prerequisites are mandatory for a stay application.
Bombay High Court holds that the Registrar of Trade Marks qualifies as a 'Court' under Section 24 CPC, enabling transfer of rectification proceedings to be consolidated with infringement suits. This ruling streamlines adjudication by preventing parallel litigation and reinforces the contextual interpretation of 'Court' under procedural laws, impacting trademark litigants and IP practitioners.
Bombay High Court holds that the two-month deadline for filing an Evidence Affidavit under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules 2017 is directory, allowing extensions under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 even after expiry. This ruling clarifies that procedural timelines in rectification proceedings may be relaxed where justice demands, offering relief to parties facing delays.
ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that an assessing officer cannot use rectification under Section 154 to convert income previously accepted as business income into unexplained income under Section 69A when the classification is genuinely debatable. This protects taxpayers from retrospective reclassification via procedural shortcuts, reinforcing that rectification is for clerical errors only - not for revisiting contested tax positions.
ITAT Mumbai rules that Form 3CL issued by DSIR and already part of the Assessing Officer’s record cannot be dismissed as additional evidence in rectification proceedings under Section 154. The ruling mandates consideration of pre-existing documents for income tax deductions, impacting taxpayers relying on DSIR approvals.
Delhi High Court clarifies that minor visual changes in device marks do not constitute substantial alteration under Rule 37 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017.