Problem Sections, Acts, Rules Case Laws & Conclusion
X, a citizen of a foreign country, Section 6 of the Patents Act, - No Case Laws Needed-
which does not grant the citizens 1970
Conclusion: In the instant
of India the right to make a
The Patent Cooperation Treaty problem, X has right to apply for
patent application in that country
patent in Delhi. The Convention
makes an application to the Section 6 of the Act deals with
country can claim patent. Hence,
patent office in Delhi. The the persons entitled to apply for
the Controller 's decision is
Controller accepts the patent having origin outside.
lawful.
application. Is the Controller's
decision lawful? If so give
reasons, if not explain why?
Y, an author of a novel filed a Section 61 in the Copyright
suit against Z alleging that Z has Act, 1957: Only the owner of a
copied from a novel of foreign work(or his exclusive licensee
author. Whether the Judge can can bring legal action against
punish Y or Z or both for infringer.
violation of copy right.
The applicant X sought to Section 27(1) provides that the Rustom Ali Molla and Others vs.
register the trademark 'Nokia' in proprietor of a registered Bata Shoe Co. Ltd.,AIR 1957
respect of wines from a certain trademark is entitled to take Cal 120
area in Chennai. The owner of action;
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd.
the trademark 'Nokia' in relation
a. to prevent infringement of the vs The Dunlop Lubricant Co.,
to mobile phones opposed the
registered trademark or (1898) 16 RPC 12
registration Since the marks are
identical the question that b. to recover damages for such Conclusion: In the instant
remained was whether the goods infringement problem, X Company can use
(wine and mobiles) are similar. the trademark 'Nokia'. The act of
Decide? X does not amounts to passing
off and infringement. Hence,
'Nokia' brand is not entitled for
injunction.
Paracetomol and lbruprofen are Section 29(1) of the Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v.
well known drugs for relief in Trademarks Act, 1999. Crystal Pharmaceuticals,
fever and pain respectively. Now CS(OS) 104/2011,
A registered mark is infringed
X combines these two drugs and
when a person who is neither its Conclusion: In the instant
produces combination drug for
owner nor a registered user uses problem, X cannot seek patent
treatment of fever and pain. X
an identical or deceptively by combining drugs namely
wants to patent this com bination
similar mark in relation to the Paracetomol and Ibruprofen.
drug. Can he get it patented?
goods which are covered by Hence, the patent owners are
registered mark. entitled to an injunction.
Students of a school performed a No Sections Subject to certain Conclusion: In the instant
story of noted author in the conditions, a fair deal for use of problem, the school annual
annual function of the school. works in schools is permitted function is not a commercial
The author claims it as without specific permission of activity. Hence, the performance
infringement of his right to the copyright owners. during the annual function does
perform. Advise the school not infringe author 's copyright.
authorities.
M, is a MNC holding a Plaintiff with an established N.R Dongre v Whirlpool
trademark W for washing international reputation can sue Corporation ((1996) 5 SCC
machines. The trademark to protect in India even if it does 714)
acquired international reputation. not have any business activity in
TVS Collaborated with
N started his washing machines India.
Whirlpool and then failed to
business in India and started
'Trans-border reputation' was renew the trademark registration.
using a trademark similar to W.
recognized and the trademark Whirlpool contended trademark
In a trademark infringement suit
'Whirlpool' was deemed to have violation and Court ruled in
brought by M, N contends that
acquired Trans-border reputation favour of Whirlpool
as the goods are not available in
which enjoys due protection of
India, hence, he is not liable for Conclusion: M is entitled for
law in India as well, irrespective
any trademark violations of M. 'Trans-border reputation'. The
of its market base or registration
Decide. contention of N is not valid. N
in India.
infringed trademark of M.
M and N were working together First to File Rule (FTF) and First Conclusion: In the instant
on an invention. However, N to Invent Rule (FTI) problem, while opposing the
disassociates himself from M grant of patent to N, M needs to
Section 6ofPatentsAct,
and starts working prove that he is 'true and first
1970:Who can file patent
independently. N applies for a inventor' . When such opposition
application?
patent to the Controller of is pending N also needs to prove
Patents. M comes to know about Section 1lA: Pre-grant that he is 'true and first inventor'.
this fact and tries to oppose the opposition
patent grant in favour of N. On 25(1)(a) and 25(2)(a):
what grounds an opposition may Opposition to patent
be brought?
Section 25(1) of the PatentsAct,
1970: Grounds for opposition
