Assignment 1

The Patents Act, 1970

Chapters I

Chapter 1 of the Patents Act 1970 deals with the preliminary aspects of the Act. It contains
definitions and interpretations of key terms used throughout the Act.

The chapter begins by defining terms such as "invention," "patent," "patentee," and "prescribed,"
among others. It also defines the scope of the Act, which extends to the whole of India.

The Act provides for the establishment of a patent office, which shall be headed by the Controller
General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks. The chapter also lays down the powers and
functions of the Controller, including the grant and revocation of patents and the registration of
assignments and transmissions of patents.

The Act provides for the establishment of a patent office, which shall be headed by the Controller
General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks. The chapter also lays down the powers and
functions of the Controller, including the grant and revocation of patents and the registration of
assignments and transmissions of patents.

The chapter provides for the filing of applications for patents, including provisions for the
priority date, the contents of the application, and the examination of the application. It also
outlines the grounds on which a patent may be granted or refused, such as lack of novelty, non-
obviousness, and the subject matter of the invention not being patentable.

The chapter also provides for the publication of patent applications and the protection of
confidential information contained therein. It specifies the rights and obligations of patentees,
such as the right to prevent others from making, using, or selling the patented invention without
their permission.
Overall, Chapter 1 of the Patents Act 1970 lays down the basic framework for the granting and
protection of patents in India, and provides the foundational definitions and interpretations
required for understanding the Act as a whole.

Chapters II

Chapter 2 of the Patents Act 1970 deals with the various provisions related to the "Procedure for
Grant of Patents." The chapter outlines the process for filing a patent application, examination of
the application, publication of the application, and grant of the patent.

Section 6 of the chapter deals with the filing of a patent application, which can be done by any
person claiming to be the true and first inventor of the invention. The application must be in the
prescribed form and should contain all the necessary details of the invention.

Section 7 deals with the examination of the patent application, which is carried out by the
Controller of Patents. The examination includes checking the patentability of the invention,
conducting a search for prior art, and examining the claims made in the application.

Section 11 outlines the requirements for the publication of the patent application. The application
is published after 18 months from the date of filing or priority date, whichever is earlier. The
publication provides an opportunity for interested parties to oppose the grant of the patent.

Section 12 deals with the grant of the patent. Once the application is examined and found to be
patentable, the Controller grants the patent. The patent is granted for a period of 20 years from
the date of filing.

Section 13 outlines the conditions for the grant of a patent. The invention must be new, non-
obvious, and useful. The invention must also not be against public order or morality.

Section 16 deals with the revocation of a patent. A patent can be revoked if it was granted in
contravention of the provisions of the Act, or if the invention does not meet the conditions for
patentability.

Overall, Chapter 2 of the Patents Act 1970 provides a comprehensive framework for the grant of
patents in India and ensures that the patent system is fair and transparent.
Chapters III

Chapter 3 of the Patents Act 1970 deals with the filing and examination of patent applications in
India. The chapter contains 26 sections, which can be summarized as follows:

Section 10: This section specifies the contents of a patent application and the manner in which it
should be filed.

Section 11: This section deals with the filing date of a patent application and the consequences of
a delay in filing.

Section 12: This section specifies the conditions for claiming priority based on a foreign
application.

Section 13: This section specifies the conditions for filing a complete specification after filing a
provisional specification.

Section 14: This section deals with the examination of patent applications and the circumstances
under which an application may be refused.

Section 15: This section specifies the requirements for publication of patent applications.

Section 16: This section deals with the examination report and the conditions for filing a
response to the report.

Section 17: This section specifies the conditions for grant of a patent.

Section 18: This section deals with the conditions for revocation of a patent.

Section 19: This section specifies the rights conferred by a patent.

Section 20: This section deals with the assignment and transmission of patent rights.

Section 21: This section specifies the conditions for obtaining a license to work a patented
invention.

Section 22: This section deals with the compulsory licensing of patented inventions.

Section 23: This section specifies the conditions for revocation of a compulsory license.

Section 24: This section deals with the registration of assignments, transmissions, and licenses.
Section 25: This section specifies the powers of the Controller of Patents.

Section 26: This section specifies the rules for making and publishing patent office journals.

In summary, Chapter 3 of the Patents Act 1970 outlines the procedures for filing, examination,
and grant of patents in India. It also specifies the rights conferred by a patent, the conditions for
revocation and compulsory licensing, and the powers of the Controller of Patents.

Chapter V

Chapter 5 of the Patents Act, 1970 deals with the rights of patentees, including the grant and
duration of patents, the transfer and assignment of patent rights, and the remedies available for
infringement of patent rights. The main provisions of Chapter 5 are as follows:

 Grant of Patents: The Controller of Patents is empowered to grant patents to applicants

who fulfill the conditions for patentability, including novelty, inventive step, and
industrial applicability. A patent is granted for a term of 20 years from the date of filing of
the application.
 Transfer and Assignment of Patents: The owner of a patent may transfer or assign his
patent rights to another person, either wholly or partially, by an instrument in writing. The
transfer or assignment of a patent must be recorded in the register of patents.
 Licenses: A patentee may grant licenses to other persons to use his patented invention.
The grant of a license may be exclusive or non-exclusive and may be subject to various
conditions and limitations. Compulsory licenses may also be granted by the Controller of
Patents in certain circumstances, including national emergencies or public interest.
 Infringement: The Act defines infringement of a patent as the unauthorized making,
using, selling, or importing of a patented invention. A patentee may take legal action to
prevent infringement and seek remedies such as injunctions, damages, and accounts of
profits.
 Revocation: The Act provides for the revocation of patents in certain circumstances,
including non-compliance with the conditions of patentability, failure to disclose relevant
information, and public interest.
Chapter 5 of the Patents Act, 1970 plays a crucial role in promoting innovation and protecting
the rights of patentees in India. The provisions of this chapter ensure that patent owners have
exclusive rights to their inventions, while also providing a framework for the transfer and
licensing of patent rights and the prevention and redressal of infringement.

Chapter VII

Chapter 7 of the Patents Act 1970 deals with the "Use of Inventions for Purposes of Government
and Obtaining a License."

Section 99 of the chapter provides that the central government can use any patented invention for
its own purposes or for the purpose of any government undertaking. However, the government
has to ensure that the patent holder is adequately compensated for such use.

Section 100 of the chapter deals with the compulsory licensing of a patent in certain situations,
including national emergencies, public health crises, and the failure of the patent holder to work
the patent in India. The section lays down the procedure for obtaining a compulsory license and
the factors that the controller of patents must consider before granting one.

Section 101 of the chapter provides for the revocation of a patent by the central government in
certain circumstances, including if the patent was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, if
the invention is found to be not patentable, or if the patent holder has failed to work the invention
in India for a period of two years.

Section 102 of the chapter provides for the acquisition of an invention by the central government
in certain circumstances, including during a national emergency or for public purposes.

Overall, Chapter 7 of the Patents Act 1970 provides for the use of patented inventions by the
central government, compulsory licensing, revocation of patents, and acquisition of inventions
by the government in certain circumstances, while also ensuring that patent holders are
adequately compensated for any use of their inventions by the government.
Chapter VIII

Chapter 8 of the Patents Act 1970 deals with the "Offences and Penalties" related to patent law in
India.

Section 103 of the chapter provides for the penalty for falsely representing a patent as granted,
registered, or applied for, with the intention to deceive or cause injury to any person. Such an
offense can result in imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both.

Section 104 of the chapter provides for the penalty for applying false marking on products as
patented. This offense can result in a fine of up to Rs. 50,000.

Section 105 of the chapter provides for the penalty for importing or selling any article in India
which is an infringement of a patent. This offense can result in imprisonment of up to three
years, a fine, or both.

Section 106 of the chapter provides for the penalty for fraudulent use of an invention for which a
patent application has been made. This offense can result in imprisonment of up to two years, a
fine, or both.

Section 107 of the chapter provides for the penalty for unauthorized claim of patent rights. This
offense can result in imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both.

Overall, Chapter 8 of the Patents Act 1970 provides for various penalties for different offenses
related to patent law in India. These penalties help to deter individuals and companies from
committing any patent-related offenses and protect the rights of patent holders.

Chapter X

Chapter 10 of the Patents Act, 1970 deals with the provisions related to the infringement of
patents in India. The chapter contains various sections that describe the acts that constitute
infringement and the remedies available to the patentee in case of infringement.
Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 defines infringement as the unauthorized making, using,
selling, offering for sale, or importing of a patented invention within India. The section also
states that anyone who performs any of these acts without the permission of the patentee is liable
for infringement.

Section 49 provides for the remedies available to the patentee in case of infringement. The
patentee may file a suit for infringement in a court of law and may seek various reliefs, including
an injunction, damages, and an account of profits. The section also provides for the defense of
innocent infringement, where the defendant is not aware of the existence of the patent.

Section 50 specifies the jurisdiction of courts in case of infringement suits. A suit for
infringement may be filed in a court where the defendant resides or carries on business, or where
the cause of action arises.

Section 51 provides for the right of the Central Government to use a patented invention for
public purposes. The section also specifies the procedure for obtaining such a license and the
compensation payable to the patentee.

Section 52 deals with the provisions for compulsory licensing of patents in India. The section
specifies the circumstances under which a compulsory license may be granted, including
situations of public health emergencies and non-working or inadequate working of the patented
invention in India. The section also lays down the procedure for obtaining a compulsory license.

Overall, Chapter 10 of the Patents Act, 1970 is crucial in safeguarding the rights of patentees in
India and balancing the interests of inventors with the public interest.

Chapter XII

Chapter 12 of the Patents Act 1970 deals with the "Offences and Penalties."

Section 118 of the chapter lays down the offenses related to the infringement of patents,
including making, using, importing, or selling a patented invention without the patent holder's
permission. The section also provides for the punishment for such offenses, which can include
imprisonment, fines, or both.
Section 119 of the chapter deals with the offense of falsely representing that an article is patented
or applying a false patent number to an article. The section also provides for the punishment for
such offenses.

Section 120 of the chapter lays down the procedure for the seizure of infringing goods and the
powers of the court to grant an injunction, damages, or an account of profits in case of
infringement of patents.

Section 121 of the chapter provides for the offenses related to the falsification of entries in the
register of patents or the creation of false entries in the register. The section also provides for the
punishment for such offenses.

Overall, Chapter 12 of the Patents Act 1970 provides for the offenses related to the infringement
of patents, falsely representing a patent, seizure of infringing goods, and falsification of entries in
the register of patents, along with the corresponding punishments for these offenses. The chapter
ensures that the rights of patent holders are protected and that offenders are punished for any
violations of these rights.

Chapter XIV

Chapter 14 of the Patents Act 1970 deals with the "Working of Patented Inventions, Compulsory
Licenses, and Revocation."

Section 83 of the chapter lays down the general principles for the working of patented inventions
in India. The section provides that patents should not be granted merely to enable the patent
holder to enjoy a monopoly, but to encourage inventions and their dissemination, and promote
industrial and economic development in India.

Section 84 of the chapter deals with compulsory licenses, which allow a third party to use a
patented invention without the permission of the patent holder, under certain circumstances. The
section provides for the grounds on which a compulsory license can be granted, including if the
patent holder has failed to work the invention in India, or if the invention is not available to the
public at an affordable price. The section also lays down the procedure for the grant of a
compulsory license.
Section 85 of the chapter deals with the revocation of patents, which can be done by the central
government or the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in certain cases, including if the
patent was granted in contravention of the provisions of the Act, or if the invention is not a
patentable subject matter. The section also provides for the procedure for the revocation of a
patent.

Section 92 of the chapter deals with the powers of the central government to make rules for the
working of patented inventions and the grant of compulsory licenses.

Overall, Chapter 14 of the Patents Act 1970 provides for the principles of working of patented
inventions, the grant of compulsory licenses, and the revocation of patents in certain cases. The
chapter ensures that the patent system promotes the progress of science and technology,
encourages innovation, and benefits the public.

Chapter XVI

Chapter 16 of the Patents Act 1970 deals with the "Offences and Penalties."

Section 118 of the chapter lays down the penalties for various offenses related to patents. The
section provides that any person who makes false statements or representations in connection
with the grant of a patent or the registration of a patent agent, or who falsely represents that a
design is registered under the Patents Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment and/or fine.

Section 119 of the chapter deals with the offenses committed by government employees or
officials related to patents. The section provides that any government employee or official who
discloses any confidential information related to a patent application, or who uses such
information for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other person, shall be punishable with
imprisonment and/or fine.

Section 120 of the chapter provides for the power of the court to order the forfeiture or
destruction of infringing goods, materials, or articles. The section also provides for the disposal
of such goods, materials, or articles in case they cannot be forfeited or destroyed.
Section 121 of the chapter provides for the cognizance of offenses related to patents by courts,
and the limitation period for filing a complaint or initiating proceedings. The section provides
that any offense related to patents shall be cognizable by a court of competent jurisdiction, and
that the limitation period for filing a complaint or initiating proceedings shall be three years from
the date on which the offense was committed.

Overall, Chapter 16 of the Patents Act 1970 provides for the penalties for various offenses
related to patents, including making false statements, disclosing confidential information, and
infringing patents. The chapter ensures that the patent system is protected and that the rights of
patent holders are safeguarded.

Chapter XXI

Chapter 21 of the Patents Act 1970 deals with the "International Arrangements."

Section 64 of the chapter provides for the power of the Central Government to make provisions
related to international arrangements for the protection of patents. The section empowers the
government to enter into agreements with other countries for the protection of patents and to
make rules for implementing such agreements.

Section 65 of the chapter provides for the recognition of certain international applications and
patents. The section provides that if an international application is filed under the Patent
Cooperation Treaty (PCT), then the application may be treated as a national application and
examined accordingly. Similarly, if a patent is granted in any country that is a party to an
agreement with India, then the patent may be registered in India as well.

Section 66 of the chapter provides for the filing of applications under the PCT. The section
provides that an Indian applicant may file an international application under the PCT and that
such application shall be deemed to be a national application under the Patents Act 1970.
Section 67 of the chapter provides for the registration of patents granted in convention countries.
The section provides that if a patent is granted in a convention country, then the patent may be
registered in India within 12 months from the date of the grant of the patent.

Overall, Chapter 21 of the Patents Act 1970 provides for the provisions related to international
arrangements for the protection of patents. The chapter ensures that India is able to participate in
international agreements for the protection of patents and that Indian applicants are able to file
international applications under the PCT. The chapter also provides for the registration of patents
granted in convention countries, which ensures that inventors from other countries can obtain
patent protection in India as well.

Definitions

- Patents of Addition

A Patent of Addition is a type of patent that is filed to protect a modification or improvement

made to an existing invention that is already covered by an earlier patent. It is also sometimes
referred to as a "divisional patent."

In other words, a Patent of Addition allows the patent owner to protect a new invention that is
based on or derived from an earlier invention that they have already patented. The new invention
can be an improvement, modification, or addition to the original invention.

- Register of Patents

The Register of Patents is a database or record maintained by the government or patent office of
a country, where all the granted patents are registered. The register contains detailed information
about the patent, including the patent holder's name, the patent's title, the filing date, the priority
date, the invention's description, and the scope of the patent's claims.

- Power of Controller

The Power of Controller in patents refers to the legal authority granted to the Controller of
Patents, who is the head of the patent office in a country, to administer and regulate the patent
system in that country. The Controller is responsible for granting patents, examining patent
applications, and ensuring compliance with the patent laws and regulations.

- Compulsory License and Revocation of Patents

Compulsory licensing and revocation of patents are two legal mechanisms that can be used to
limit or revoke the exclusive rights of a patent holder over their invention.

A compulsory license is a legal instrument that allows a government to grant permission to a

third party to manufacture or use a patented invention without the patent holder's consent. This is
usually done to ensure that a vital technology or medicine is made available to the public at an
affordable price. The patent holder is compensated for the use of their invention, but the
compensation is usually less than what they would have received if they had negotiated a
voluntary license.

In contrast, revocation of a patent means that the exclusive rights of the patent holder are
completely terminated, and the patent is no longer valid. This can happen if the patent is found to
be invalid or non-compliant with the patent laws. The process of revocation is usually initiated
by a third party who challenges the validity of the patent in court or through an administrative
proceeding.

- Acquisition Of Inventions by Central Government

In India, the Central Government has the power to acquire any invention or patent for public
purposes under certain circumstances as provided under the Indian Patents Act, 1970. This power
is known as compulsory acquisition or government use.

Section 100 of the Patents Act provides that if the Central Government is satisfied that any
invention is necessary for the purposes of public interest, it can use or manufacture that invention
without the consent of the patent holder. However, before doing so, the Central Government
must try to negotiate with the patent holder to acquire the invention on reasonable terms. If the
negotiations fail, the Central Government can issue a notification declaring that it intends to use
or manufacture the invention.
- Suits Concerning Infringement of Patents

In India, a patent holder who believes that their patent has been infringed can file a suit for patent
infringement in a court of law. The legal remedy available to the patent holder is provided under
the Indian Patents Act, 1970.

The following are some of the key provisions related to suits concerning infringement of patents
in India:

1. Jurisdiction: A suit for patent infringement can be filed in a District Court or a High Court
having jurisdiction over the matter. In case of a High Court, the jurisdiction will depend
on the value of the dispute or the location of the infringing act.
2. Grounds for infringement: A patent holder can file a suit for infringement if someone else
has made, used, sold, or imported the patented invention without their permission. The
patent holder can also file a suit for contributory infringement if someone is providing
components or services that are essential for the invention's use.
3. Defenses: The defendant in a patent infringement suit can raise certain defenses, such as
claiming that the patent is invalid or that their use of the invention is covered by a prior
license agreement.
4. Remedies: If the court finds that the patent has been infringed, it can grant several
remedies to the patent holder, including an injunction to stop the infringing activity,
damages or an account of profits, and court costs.
5. Time limit: A suit for patent infringement must be filed within three years from the date
of the alleged infringement.

It is important to note that patent infringement suits can be complex and require a thorough
understanding of the patent laws and regulations. It is advisable to seek legal advice from a
qualified patent attorney before filing a suit for patent

-International Arrangements
India is a signatory to several international agreements related to patents. These agreements are
aimed at harmonizing the patent laws and regulations across different countries and promoting
international cooperation in the field of patents. Some of the key international agreements related
to patents in India are:

1. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property: India is a signatory to the Paris
Convention, which provides for the mutual recognition of patents and the basic principles
of patent protection, including the right of priority, the national treatment, and the
prohibition of discrimination.
2. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): India is a member of the PCT, which is a treaty that
simplifies the process of filing patent applications in multiple countries. The PCT
provides for a centralized filing and examination process, which can reduce the cost and
time of obtaining a patent in multiple countries.
3. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS): India is a
signatory to TRIPS, which is a part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements.
TRIPS sets out the minimum standards of intellectual property protection, including
patents, that must be provided by member countries.
4. Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for
the Purposes of Patent Procedure: India is a member of the Budapest Treaty, which
provides for the recognition of the deposit of microorganisms in an international
depository authority for the purposes of patent procedure.

India's participation in these international agreements has led to the harmonization of its patent
laws and regulations with those of other countries, which has facilitated the international filing
and protection of patents. It has also provided greater transparency and predictability in the
patent system and has promoted international cooperation in the field of patents.

10 Landmark Judgements Under the Patents Act

 Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motors Comp. Ltd. (2010)

Facts of the Case: Bajaj Auto Ltd. was the registered owner of a patent related to a "twin spark plug
engine" technology, which it had developed and used in its motorcycles. TVS Motors Comp. Ltd.
launched a new motorcycle model called "Flame" that used a similar technology, which Bajaj Auto
alleged to be an infringement of its patent. Bajaj Auto filed a suit for infringement of its patent, and the
case went to trial.

The trial court initially held that the "twin spark plug engine" technology was not novel and inventive
enough to be eligible for patent protection. However, on appeal, the Madras High Court reversed the
decision and held that the patent was valid and enforceable. TVS Motors appealed the decision to the
Supreme Court of India.

Question of Law Involved: The main question of law involved in this case was whether TVS Motors had
infringed Bajaj Auto's patent by using a similar technology in its motorcycles. Another question of law
was whether Bajaj Auto's patent was valid and enforceable.

Ratio (Findings): The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, held that TVS Motors had infringed Bajaj
Auto's patent by using a similar technology in its motorcycles. The Court also held that Bajaj Auto's
patent was valid and enforceable, and the technology was sufficiently novel and inventive to be eligible
for patent protection.

 Novartis v. Union of India (2013) 

Facts of the Case: Novartis AG filed a patent application for the beta-crystalline form of
Imatinib Mesylate, a drug used in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia. The application
was rejected by the Indian Patent Office on the ground that the drug did not satisfy the
requirement of novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970. Novartis appealed the
decision, and the case went to trial.

Question of Law Involved: The main question of law involved in this case was whether the
beta-crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate was eligible for patent protection under the Indian
Patent Act, 1970. Another question of law was whether the grant of a patent for the drug would
have a negative impact on public health and access to affordable medicines.

Ratio (Findings): The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, held that the beta-crystalline
form of Imatinib Mesylate was not eligible for patent protection under the Indian Patent Act,
1970. The Court held that the drug did not satisfy the requirement of novelty and inventive step
and was merely a new form of a known substance.
  F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd vs Cipla Ltd., Mumbai Central

Facts of the Case: Hoffmann-La Roche had obtained a patent for the drug Erlotinib, which was
marketed under the brand name Tarceva. Cipla, a Mumbai-based pharmaceutical company, began
manufacturing and selling a generic version of the drug in India under the brand name Erlocip.
Hoffmann-La Roche alleged that Cipla had infringed its patent rights and filed a suit for
infringement in the Delhi High Court.

Question of Law Involved: The main question of law involved in this case was whether Cipla
had infringed Hoffmann-La Roche's patent for Erlotinib. Another question of law was whether
the Indian Patent Act, 1970, allowed for the grant of product patents for pharmaceuticals.

Ratio (Findings): The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, held that Cipla had not infringed
Hoffmann-La Roche's patent for Erlotinib. The Court held that the patent was invalid and not
enforceable in India as it did not meet the criteria for patentability under the Indian Patent Act,
1970.

 Bayer Corporation vs Union of India (2014)

Facts of the Case: Bayer Corporation, a pharmaceutical company, held a patent for Sorafenib
Tosylate, which was marketed under the brand name Nexavar. The drug was used for the
treatment of liver and kidney cancer and was sold at a high price. Natco Pharma, an Indian
generic drug manufacturer, applied to the Indian Patent Office for a compulsory license to
manufacture and sell a generic version of the drug at a lower price. The Patent Office granted the
license, and Bayer appealed the decision to the IPAB.

Question of Law Involved: The main question of law involved in this case was whether the
Indian Patent Act, 1970, allowed for the grant of compulsory licenses for pharmaceuticals and
whether the grant of such licenses was consistent with India's obligations under the TRIPS
Agreement.

Ratio (Findings): The IPAB, in its judgment, upheld the grant of the compulsory license to
Natco Pharma. The Board held that the Indian Patent Act, 1970, allowed for the grant of
compulsory licenses for pharmaceuticals in certain circumstances, such as when the patent
holder had not made the drug available to the public at a reasonable price. The Board also held
that the grant of such licenses was consistent with India's obligations under the TRIPS
Agreement, which allows for the use of compulsory licenses to address public health concerns.

 Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora &Anr (1999)

Facts of the Case: Yahoo! Inc. is a US-based internet company that offers a variety of online
services, including email, search engines, and news. Akash Arora and Anr. registered the domain
name "YahooIndia.com" in 1996 and launched a web portal that provided similar online services
to those offered by Yahoo!.

Yahoo! Inc. filed a lawsuit against Akash Arora and Anr. in the Delhi High Court, alleging
trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.

Question of Law Involved: The main question of law involved in this case was whether the use
of the domain name "YahooIndia.com" by Akash Arora and Anr. constituted trademark
infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.

Ratio (Findings): The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, held that the use of the domain name
"YahooIndia.com" by Akash Arora and Anr. constituted trademark infringement, passing off, and
unfair competition. The Court found that the domain name was deceptively similar to Yahoo!'s
trademark and that the web portal operated by Akash Arora and Anr. was likely to cause
confusion among the public.

 Clinique Laboratories LLC & Anr. v. Gufic Ltd. & Anr

Facts of the Case: Clinique Laboratories LLC & Anr. (the Plaintiffs) are a well-known US-
based cosmetic company that sells a range of skincare and beauty products under the trademark
"Clinique". Gufic Ltd. & Anr. (the Defendants) are an Indian pharmaceutical company that
started selling a range of skincare and beauty products under the trademark "Cliniq".

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Bombay High Court alleging trademark infringement and
passing off against the Defendants.

Question of Law Involved: The main question of law involved in this case was whether the use
of the trademark "Cliniq" by the Defendants constituted trademark infringement and passing off.
Ratio (Findings): The Bombay High Court, in its judgment, held that the use of the trademark
"Cliniq" by the Defendants amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The Court
found that the trademark "Cliniq" was deceptively similar to the trademark "Clinique" and that
the Defendants' use of the trademark was likely to cause confusion among the public.

 Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Moviestrunk.com & Ors.

Facts of the Case: Star India Pvt. Ltd. (the Plaintiff) is a leading broadcaster in India that
produces and broadcasts a range of TV shows, movies, and sports events. The Plaintiff filed a
lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against Moviestrunk.com and several other websites (the
Defendants) that were streaming and distributing the Plaintiff's copyrighted content without
authorization.

Question of Law Involved: The main question of law involved in this case was whether the
unauthorized streaming and distribution of copyrighted content by the Defendants amounted to
copyright infringement.

Ratio (Findings): The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, held that the Defendants' actions
amounted to copyright infringement and ordered them to immediately cease and desist from
streaming and distributing the Plaintiff's copyrighted content. The Court also ordered the internet
service providers (ISPs) to block access to the infringing websites.

  Marico Limited v. AbhijeetBhansali(2020) 

Facts of the Case: Marico Limited (the Plaintiff) is a well-known Indian company that produces
a range of consumer products, including hair oils. The Plaintiff owns several trademark
registrations, including the mark "PARACHUTE", which is a well-known brand in India. The
Defendant, Abhijeet Bhansali, was using the mark "PARASHOOT" for his hair oil product.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Bombay High Court against the Defendant, alleging that the
Defendant's use of the mark "PARASHOOT" amounted to trademark infringement and passing
off.

Question of Law Involved: The main question of law involved in this case was whether the
Defendant's use of the mark "PARASHOOT" amounted to trademark infringement and passing
off.
Ratio (Findings): The Bombay High Court, in its judgment, held that the Defendant's use of the
mark "PARASHOOT" was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark "PARACHUTE" and
amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.

 Bajaj Electricals Ltd. v. Gourav Bajaj &Anr.(2020)

Facts of the case: Bajaj Electricals Limited (the Plaintiff) is a well-known Indian company that
manufactures and sells a range of electrical products, including fans. The Plaintiff is the owner of
several trademark registrations, including the mark "BAJAJ" and "BAJAJ ELECTRICALS". The
Defendant, Gourav Bajaj, was using the mark "GOURAV BAJAJ" for his fans and had also
registered the domain name "www.gouravbajaj.com".

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against the Defendant, alleging that the
Defendant's use of the mark "GOURAV BAJAJ" amounted to trademark infringement and
passing off.

Question of law involved: The main question of law involved in this case was whether the
Defendant's use of the mark "GOURAV BAJAJ" was likely to cause confusion among
consumers and amount to trademark infringement and passing off.

Ratio (Findings): The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, held that the Defendant's use of the
mark "GOURAV BAJAJ" was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark "BAJAJ" and "BAJAJ
ELECTRICALS" and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.

 ISKON v. Iskon Apparel Pvt. Ltd. (2020)

Facts of the case: International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) (the Plaintiff) is a
well-known religious organization that has been active in India since the 1960s. The Plaintiff is
the owner of several trademark registrations, including the mark "ISKCON" and "HARE
KRISHNA". The Defendant, Iskon Apparel Pvt. Ltd., was using the mark "ISKON" for its
clothing products.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against the Defendant, alleging that the
Defendant's use of the mark "ISKON" amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
Question of law involved: The main question of law involved in this case was whether the
Defendant's use of the mark "ISKON" was likely to cause confusion among consumers and
amount to trademark infringement and passing off.

Ratio (Findings): The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, held that the Defendant's use of the
mark "ISKON" was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark "ISKCON" and amounted to
trademark infringement and passing off.