Outcome Category

Defendant Favorable

at Central Information Commission

4 defendant favorable decisions from Central Information Commission.

Defendant Favorable Decisions

4 cases | Page 1 of 1

design defendant favorable · Jun 26, 2023

Baskar v.CPIO, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, DPIIT, RTI Cell

Central Information Commission · 131036413

The appellant filed an appeal seeking detailed information about objections and classification of their design patent application (367649-001) under the Designs Act, 2000. The CPIO denied the request, arguing that the procedural aspects of design examination are governed by the Designs Act and Rules, not the RTI Act. The Commission upheld this stance, citing precedents on the limited scope of public information.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 13, 2018

Sunil Kishore Ahya v.Election Commission of India

Central Information Commission · 167481255

The appellant sought information regarding the design and engineering of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The respondents argued that disclosing this technical information, which falls under patent rights, could enable the manufacturing of spurious machines and threaten the democratic process. The Commission agreed with the respondents' stance.

patent defendant favorable · May 29, 2013

Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran v.Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA)

Central Information Commission · 20491608

Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran filed appeals against APEDA for not providing satisfactory information regarding the file pertaining to the Geographical Indication (GI) registration of Basmati rice, including global protection efforts. The Commission ultimately ruled that APEDA had no disclosure obligation because the requested information involved commercially sensitive and subjudice matters.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 17, 2012

Shri Mohan Vidhani v.Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi

Central Information Commission · 2581148

Mohan Vidhani filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission seeking details regarding the status of a registered Trademark (TM No. 455982) during its restoration/renewal process. The CPIO denied the request, stating the queries were beyond the scope of the RTI Act as they asked how decisions were reached. The CIC upheld this decision.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a similar IP matter?

Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.

Consult our team →