Erytech Pharma v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd.vsEntertainment Network (India) Ltd.

This case involved disputes arising from a license agreement between The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (a Copyright Society) and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (an FM radio station operator). The core dispute centered on whether the claimant needed a license to broadcast copyrighted musical works, and subsequent claims regarding royalty payments and refunds. The Bombay High Court reviewed the arbitral award, ultimately setting aside one part of it due to lack of jurisdiction while allowing the petition filed by the Copyright Society.

Raghuvar (India) LimitedvsThe Registrar of Trademarks

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision regarding its opposition to the 'JAI HANUMAN' trademark. Although the appellant argued that their predecessor had prior, pan-India use and that a crucial assignment deed was ignored, the court ultimately found no infirmity in the original order. The rejection hinged on the lack of evidence demonstrating the appellant's actual use of the mark within South India, thereby upholding the Registrar's decision to restrict the scope of the new registration.

Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.VvsThe Controller of Patents and Designs

The appellants appealed against the Assistant Controller's rejection of their patent application for a fungicidal treatment using Ortho-phenyphenol (OPP) to treat black sigatoka in banana plants. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentability under Section 3(h).

Tecniqua India Private LimitedvsShree Ji Industries & Anr.

Tecniqua India Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of the trademark '/ TENDA SPORTS' (Application No. 4417483) registered in the name of Respondent No. 1. The court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties. Both sides were given specific timelines—six weeks for a reply and three weeks thereafter for a rejoinder—setting the stage for substantive arguments on trademark cancellation.

Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.)vsGlorious Investment Limited And Anr.

The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.