Dr Mohan Dewan

In the case of Electronica India Ltd vs Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt Ltd & Ors., the issue revolved around requests to record new proprietors of trademarks and the Registrar's obligations under the Trademarks Act. The Bombay High Court ordered the cancellation of the registration of Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt Ltd as trademark proprietors, and the Registrar was directed to re-examine the matter, ensuring a fair process.   Authors Manisha Singh and Puja Tiwari provide an in-depth analysis of the ruling, which underscores the importance of due process and transparency in trademark registrations. They also discuss how the court’s decision reaffirms that Registrars must diligently evaluate requests, consider all pertinent evidence, and provide clear reasoning in their decisions. To read a detailed analysis of this case and its implications, access the full article first published by Mondaq: https://lnkd.in/gGBtSg8T   #Trademark #TrademarkDispute #TrademarkLaw #TrademarkAct #DueProcess #TrademarkRegistration #IntellectualProperty #IPProtection #IPEnforcement #IPRights #BombayHighCourt #CaseAnalysis

30

1 Comment

#Intellectual #Property Law: #WeeklyUpdate    Key takeaways from the recent #legal updates in Intellectual Property Law-   1. Bombay High Court Grants Ad-Interim Injunction to #Pidilite against #Astral’s Design 2. #IP Manthan on GI Protection System in India and Russia 3. Intangible #Asset Investment Growing Fast: WIPO 4. Remove all references to ‘Real’ juices in #YouTube video: Calcutta High #Court 5. ‘Enough grounds to demonstrate that urgent relief was contemplated’: #Bombay High Court S&A Law Offices #intellectualproperty #design #trademark #patent #weeklyupdates #Trademarkupdates #IPupdates #LegalUpdate #LeadingLawyers #Law #IPstrategy #LegalInsights

25

A Record-breaking Year For IP Filings In India The Indian IP Office’s Annual Report 2022–23 indicates that IP filings in India are continuing to surge even though filing activity has weakened globally. Be it #patents, #trademarks, #designs or geographical indications (#GIs), filings over the past decade have nearly doubled. Taking stock of India's #innovation landscape through the lens of intellectual property rights, Remfry & Sagar's Managing Partner Ashwin Julka analyses trends in an article published by WIPR - World IP Review which you can read here: https://lnkd.in/gqyV4iU7 #ipfilings #iprights #remfry

103

1 Comment

Call for Papers | Indian Journal of Arbitration Law, Vol 13 Issue 1 Read More Here- https://lnkd.in/eH6DtvSD #IJAL #InstitutionalArbitration #AlternativeDisputeResolution #internationalcommercialarbitration #MultilateralArbitrationConventions #submissionguidelines #scconline #SCC #legalnews #legalknowledge #scctimes #legalblog #legalupdates #lawstudent #legalresearch #legalstudies #surestwaytolegalresearch #bringingyouthebestlegalnews

28

Indian IP Office Orders Re-evaluation of Trademark Applications #IntellectualProperty #Trademarks #Intellectualpropertylaw #QualityCouncilofIndia #RevalidationofTMapplicationsCGPDTM #TMRegistry #Trademarkapplicationreview #Trademarkreevaluation

16

✍ Legal Lock Journal [ISSN. 2583-0384] Manuscript Title: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SENTENCING POLICY OF COURTS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE OFFENSE OF THEFT Authored by: Ishika Jain M. Published in Volume 3 Issue 1 Submit Your Manuscript Now: https://lnkd.in/gGXGEn_r Found it Informative? Comment down your views :) #researchpaper #researchpaperwriting #researchpublication #callforpapers #legallock

5

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are legal rights granted to creators and inventors to protect their innovations, designs, and creations from unauthorized use. In India, IPR is governed by various laws, including the Patents Act, 1970, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Designs Act, 2000. #law #legalrights #legaladvice #legalservices #legalhelp #lawfirm #lawyer www.metrolegalexperts.in

3

https://lnkd.in/dzYfCP3X The Court ordered the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademark to frame a code of conduct to regulate such agents and to clarify what would constitute professional misconduct and professional negligence. #advertisement #misleadingadvertisement #patent #design #trademark #professionalmisconduct #professionalnegligence #misconduct #negligence #codeofconduct

1

Code of Conduct for IP Practitioners For the first time in Indian IP jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court has instructed the Controller General to finalise a code of conduct that regulates #IP practitioners. The decision comes after the court reinstated a #patent application that was deemed to be abandoned due to #negligence. Surendra Sharma of Remfry & Sagar discusses the ruling in an article published by IAM that you can read here: https://lnkd.in/gtpvnPrr #CodeOfConduct

70

Case Law : Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Appellant) Versus Reliance Telecom Ltd. & Ors. (Respondents) ; National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench New Delhi Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 273 & 355 of 2024. IBC Prevails over TRAI Act? Judgement: One of the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant is that TRAI Act is a special law governing all aspects of the provisions of telecommunications service in the country, whereas the IBC is a general law governing insolvency, hence the provisions of TRAI Act would prevail in respect of matters dealing with the Regulations of the telecom companies. The IBC is a special law and latter enactment than to the TRAI Act, which was enacted in 1997, whereas IBC has been enacted in 2016. Section 238 of the IBC gives overriding effect to the provisions of the IBC to all other laws. Section 238 of the IBC is as follows: “238. Provisions of this Code to override other laws - The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.” Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. & ors. – Civil Appeal Nos.4230-4234 of 2020 decided on 01.03.2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment has held that IBC is a special statute, which must prevail in the event of conflict, but has a non-obstante clause contained in Section 238. Paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is as follows: “14. Having heard learned counsel for all the parties, it is important to restate a few fundamentals. Given the object of the IBC as delineated in paragraphs 25 to 28 of Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17 [“Swiss Ribbons”], it is clear that the IBC is a special statute dealing with revival of companies that are in the red, winding up only being resorted to in case all attempts of revival fail. Vis-à-vis the Companies Act, which is a general statute dealing with companies, including companies that are in the red, the IBC is not only a special statute which must prevail in the event of conflict, but has a non-obstante clause contained in Section 238, which makes it even clearer that in case of conflict, the provisions of the IBC will prevail.” Hon’ble NCLAT held that in view of the clear pronouncement of the above law, submission of the Appellant that TRAI Act is a special statute and would prevail over the IBC, has to be rejected. For details: https://lnkd.in/dJrX8ySN

1

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has issued several landmark rulings that have shaped the regulatory landscape of the telecommunications sector in India. Here are some key decisions: 1. Reliance Communications vs. BSNL (2006): This case dealt with interconnect usage charges (IUC) between BSNL and other operators. TDSAT ruled that the charges levied by BSNL were discriminatory, which led to a significant revision in the framework governing IUC across all operators. 2. Cellular Operators Association of India vs. TRAI (2012): In this pivotal case, TDSAT addressed the issue of 3G intra-circle roaming agreements. The tribunal held that operators could not provide 3G services in circles where they did not own spectrum licenses via roaming agreements, impacting the business strategies of major telecom players. 3. Tata Sky vs. TRAI (2017): Tata Sky challenged TRAI’s regulations on tariffs for cable and DTH services, particularly the cap on channel pricing. TDSAT's decision led to a revision in TRAI’s tariff orders, allowing for more flexibility in packaging and pricing of channels by DTH operators. 4. Bharti Airtel vs. TRAI (2018): This case involved predatory pricing in the telecom sector. TDSAT set aside TRAI’s order on predatory pricing rules, stating that they were not transparent in defining what constituted predatory pricing. This ruling was significant for maintaining competitive practices in the telecom industry. 5. Vodafone Idea vs. TRAI (2020): TDSAT dealt with the transparency and promotional tariffs offered by telecom providers. The ruling emphasized the need for clear guidelines on promotional offers and customer notifications, ensuring fair competition and consumer protection. These rulings highlight TDSAT's role in clarifying legal and regulatory uncertainties, promoting fair competition, and protecting consumer interests in the fast-evolving telecom sector. Each decision has had a significant impact on how telecom services are offered and regulated in India, reflecting the tribunal’s crucial role in shaping industry practices and policy implementation.

6

In the recent case of Rong Thai International Group Co. Ltd vs Ena Footwear Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition filed for cancellation of the trademark 'BAOJI' registered by ENA Footwear Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to prove the alleged non-use of the impugned mark, and the evidence of sustained use of the impugned mark by the respondent outweighed the findings in the investigation report regarding non-use. In this article, authors Manisha Singh and Lisha Chauhan provide an in-depth analysis of the case and the Court's decision, highlighting the importance of robust evidence in trademark disputes and upholding the integrity of trademark registrations. To read more about the case, visit the article first published by Mondaq: https://lnkd.in/grC5exfn #Trademark #TrademarkDispute #TrademarkProtection #TrademarkLaw #TrademarkCancellation #CourtProceedings #IPR #IntellectualPropertyRights #LegalInsights

16

1 Comment