Delhi High Court

Delhi HC Strikes Down AstraZeneca Patent, Upholds Rejection

by
Delhi High Court ruling upholding patent rejection for AstraZeneca sustained-release Exenatide formulation under Section 3d

The Delhi High Court delivered a decisive verdict against pharmaceutical titans Amylin Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca. The court upheld the rejection of their patent application for a sustained-release diabetes injection. This pivotal ruling reinforces India’s strict standards for inventive step and enhanced efficacy. It sends a clear warning: routine modification will not secure a monopoly.

The Exenatide Formulation: A High-Stakes Battle

The legal challenge centered on Patent Application No. 1498/DELNP/2011. This application sought protection for a specific formulation of Exenatide, a blockbuster drug managing Type 2 diabetes. The formulation was designed as a one-component injectable microsphere system. This system was meant to simplify treatment. The applicants claimed it offered practical advantages over existing multi-component kits.

The initial rejection came from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Controller argued the invention failed on two critical counts. The High Court, after meticulous review, firmly agreed with the Patent Office.

The First Strike: Lack of Inventive Step

The primary ground for refusal was the lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. This legal standard demands true technical advancement.

The High Court affirmed the Controller’s core finding: the invention was obvious to any Person Skilled In The Art (PSITA). The court argued that the claimed formulation was merely a predictable combination of existing knowledge .

  • Prior Art Combination: The invention simply utilised a known pre-mixed formulation (containing Exenatide and a stability agent like sugar) and integrated it into a known micro sphere delivery system.
  • Routine Improvement: This combination, the court reasoned, was an expected step. It involved no surprising technical effect. It constituted nothing more than “mill on the run” improvement, according to patent jurisprudence. The change lacked the necessary creative spark to merit a 20-year exclusive right.

The Second Barrier: India’s Efficacy Hurdle

The judgement also invoked India’s most powerful safeguard against ever greening: Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.

This section bars the patenting of a new form of a known substance unless it demonstrates significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Mere discovery of a new form is insufficient. It must offer a substantial biological or clinical benefit to the patient.

The applicants stressed the convenience of their one-component system. They highlighted easier administration and better shelf-life. However, the court strictly interpreted the law. It deemed these practical, non-therapeutic benefits inadequate.

The High Court confirmed the Controller’s position: Technical convenience does not equate to enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The applicants failed to provide sufficient comparative data proving their new formulation worked better in the body than the existing drug. This failure to clear the Section 3(d) hurdle proved fatal to the application.

The Applicants’ Defence: Arguments Dismissed

Amylin and AstraZeneca mounted a fierce defence. They contested the use of prior art.

  • Teaching Away: They argued some prior art actually discouraged polymer-based micro spheres, implying their solution was unexpected.
  • Specific Carrier: They claimed their specific use of a non-aqueous carrier, comprising triglycerides of C6 to C12 fatty acids, was nowhere disclosed in a single document.

The High Court dismantled these arguments. It held that the prior art, when read by an expert, provided a clear road map to the claimed invention. The failure to secure a patent rested on the lack of a genuine inventive breakthrough, not on legal technicalities.

Repercussions: A Global Wake-Up Call

This landmark verdict sends an unmistakable message to the global pharmaceutical industry.

It solidifies India’s role as a sovereign state determined to protect public health. The High Court judgement firmly validates the rigorous standards set by Indian patent law.

  1. Generic Market Boost: The decision clears the landscape. It reduces uncertainty for Indian generic manufacturers planning future production of affordable Exenatide versions.
  2. Section 3(d) Power: It confirms Section 3(d) as a pivotal guardian against monopolies based on minor chemical or formulation changes.
  3. Mandatory Disclosure: Innovators seeking protection in India must now meet the highest standard. They must provide definitive proof of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.

The judgement affirms that patent rights are statutory creations, not inherent rights. They must fall within the four corners of the Patents Act. The court successfully prevented the undue extension of a pharmaceutical monopoly, ensuring that only true innovation receives legal protection. The fight for accessible diabetes treatment gains ground.

Delhi High Court Delivers Major Relief, Revives Trident’s Air-Rich Yarn Patent Battle

by

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Patent Office’s 2021 order rejecting Trident Limited’s patent application for its “air-rich” yarn and fabric technology. The Court directed the Patent Office to conduct a fresh review and assess the application on its merits.

Court finds major flaws in earlier rejection

The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to properly examine the core inventive feature of the claimed invention. Trident had highlighted that its yarn contains pores distributed uniformly across the entire radial cross-section. The Court held that this structural feature was central to determining novelty and inventive step.

The earlier decision had questioned whether Trident used any special means to achieve this uniform pore structure. The Court disagreed. It noted that Trident had submitted detailed manufacturing parameters, and these disclosed how the unique pore distribution was achieved. It ruled that this evidence should have been assessed more carefully.

Trident’s claim and technical advantages

Trident’s technology relates to air-rich yarns and fabrics and the process for manufacturing them. The company claims its yarn improves wettability, absorbency, and drying speed. The fabric also offers enhanced thickness and a softer feel. Trident asserts that its terry fabrics can absorb water instantly and dry significantly faster than conventional fabrics.

Fresh hearing ordered

The Court reversed the earlier rejection and remanded the case to the Patent Office. It ordered that a different Controller must hear and decide the matter. The fresh examination must take place within six months. The Court also instructed the authority to evaluate the invention independently and without influence from the previous decision.

Significance for the textile industry

The ruling reinforces the requirement for reasoned and technically grounded decisions in patent matters. It highlights that structural and functional features of textile innovations must be examined thoroughly. The decision may encourage more patent filings in the textile and fibre-engineering sectors. For Trident, the judgement offers a renewed opportunity to secure exclusive rights over its air-rich yarn technology in India.

Supreme Court Transfers Eureka Forbes–Atomberg Patent Case to Bombay High Court

by

The Supreme Court of India has ordered the transfer of the ongoing patent infringement dispute between Eureka Forbes Limited and Atomberg Technologies Private Limited from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court. The apex court took this step to prevent duplication of proceedings and avoid conflicting judgments on overlapping issues.

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the ruling. The court found that both companies had initiated separate but related legal actions concerning the same patented technology used in Atomberg’s “Intellon” water purifier.

Background of the Dispute

Atomberg launched its Intellon water purifier on June 20, 2025. Soon after, the company filed a suit in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, alleging groundless threats of patent infringement from Eureka Forbes.

Eureka Forbes responded by filing a patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court on July 7, 2025, invoking Section 104 of the Patents Act. The company claimed Atomberg had violated its patent rights related to water purification technology.

The key issue was jurisdiction. Eureka Forbes argued that Delhi had jurisdiction because an online purchase and delivery of Atomberg’s product took place there. Atomberg countered that both companies’ registered offices were in Mumbai, and that the Bombay High Court was already hearing its first-filed suit on the same matter.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court agreed with Atomberg’s position. It noted that although the two cases were filed under different provisions of the Patents Act, the facts, evidence, and central questions were substantially identical.

The bench emphasized that allowing the cases to continue in separate courts could lead to conflicting decisions. It ruled that the Delhi High Court’s suit should be transferred to the Bombay High Court for joint consideration.

The Court further observed that the Delhi suit’s jurisdiction was based solely on a single online transaction, while the bulk of corporate activity and the first suit were linked to Mumbai.

Court’s Direction

The Supreme Court directed that the Delhi case be transferred immediately to the Bombay High Court. It also instructed both parties to seek an early hearing on the pending injunction applications to ensure swift resolution.

With this order, Atomberg’s transfer petition was allowed, and Eureka Forbes’ counter-petition seeking to move Atomberg’s case to Delhi was dismissed.

Legal and Industry Implications

The judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s effort to promote judicial efficiency and consistency in intellectual property litigation. It reinforces that when two suits involve the same facts and parties, the first-filed suit will often determine the proper jurisdiction.

The ruling also clarifies that online sales or deliveries alone do not automatically grant jurisdiction to a particular court if the primary connection and business operations lie elsewhere.

This case will likely serve as a precedent for future patent disputes, especially in the technology and consumer electronics sectors where companies frequently operate across multiple jurisdictions.

Delhi HC Cancels “Croose” Trademark, Upholds Crocs’ Rights in Footwear Dispute

by

Court Finds “Croose” Deceptively Similar to “CROCS”

The Delhi High Court has cancelled the trademark registration of “Croose” after ruling that the mark was deceptively similar to “CROCS”, the globally recognized footwear brand. The decision comes as a significant relief for Crocs, Inc., which has been battling misuse of its brand identity in India.

The Case

Crocs, Inc. filed a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The company argued that the “Croose” mark (Registration No. 3409214 in Class 25 for footwear) created confusion in the minds of consumers.

The petitioner claimed that the impugned mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to “CROCS.” It further alleged that the respondent adopted the mark dishonestly to ride on Crocs’ goodwill in the Indian footwear market.

Court’s Findings

Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court agreed with Crocs’ submissions.

  • The court noted that both marks were used for identical goods — footwear.
  • The similarity in sound and appearance between “Croose” and “Crocs” was held sufficient to create a likelihood of consumer confusion.
  • The adoption of the mark was deemed dishonest, with an intent to exploit Crocs’ established reputation.

Based on these observations, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove “Croose” from the register.

Why This Matters

Protection for Global Brands

The ruling reaffirms Indian courts’ strong stance on protecting well-known trademarks. Companies with established reputations can expect judicial support against infringing or deceptively similar marks.

Consumer Interest

The decision also safeguards consumers, ensuring they are not misled by products marketed under confusingly similar names.

Market Implications

By cancelling the “Croose” registration, the court has sent a clear signal to businesses that piggybacking on popular brands will not be tolerated.

Broader Context

Crocs has been expanding aggressively in India and has previously taken action against infringers and copycat products. This judgment strengthens its legal position in future disputes.

Trademark experts note that such rulings will deter small and mid-level players from choosing names that mimic established global brands. It also contributes to a healthier competitive environment in India’s fast-growing footwear market.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to cancel the “Croose” trademark marks a decisive victory for Crocs. By protecting a well-known brand and curbing dishonest adoption of similar marks, the court has reinforced the principle that trademark law is both a shield for businesses and a safeguard for consumers.

Supreme Court Rejects CCI Plea in Patent Investigation Case

by

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) plea seeking permission to investigate alleged anti-competitive practices in a patents dispute. The decision came on September 5, 2025, and upheld the Delhi High Court’s earlier order.

Background of the Case

The case involved Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Monsanto Holding Private Limited. Both companies faced allegations of imposing unfair licensing terms for their standard-essential patents. The informants had earlier approached the CCI, claiming violations of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

The Delhi High Court, however, quashed the investigation. It held that once the informants reached a settlement with the companies, there was no reason for the CCI to continue the probe. The court also stressed that the Patents Act provided the legal framework for addressing licensing disputes.

CCI’s Argument

The CCI challenged the High Court’s decision through a Special Leave Petition (SLP). It argued that it retained authority to examine whether patent holders abused their dominant position in the market. The regulator claimed that restricting its jurisdiction would weaken competition law enforcement.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the CCI’s appeal. The judges said the High Court’s order required no interference, as the informants had settled their grievances. They also noted that the inquiry overlapped with the statutory role of the Controller of Patents.

The Court clarified that its decision was limited to this case. It left open the possibility of re-examining the issue of overlap between competition law and patent law in future disputes.

Implications

The ruling reinforces the primacy of the Patents Act when disputes involve licensing terms and royalty payments. It also highlights the limits of the CCI’s role when cases fall within the domain of intellectual property law.

Legal experts believe the decision could influence future disputes involving technology licensing, biotech patents, and pharmaceutical patents. The judgment sends a clear message that patent law takes precedence, but it does not entirely close the door for competition scrutiny in other contexts.

Delhi High Court Rules Common Words Cannot Be Monopolised in Yatra Trademark Dispute

by

The Delhi High Court has ruled that businesses cannot monopolise everyday words as trademarks. The decision came in a trademark dispute between Yatra Online Limited and Mach Conferences and Events Limited, the company behind the brand BookMyYatra.

Justice Tejas Karia dismissed Yatra’s plea to stop BookMyYatra from using the term. The court observed that “Yatra”, a Hindi word meaning travel, is generic and descriptive in the travel industry. Therefore, it cannot be granted exclusive protection as a trademark.

Court’s Reasoning

The court pointed out that Yatra Online had registered trademarks such as “Yatra with device” and “Yatra Freight.” However, these registrations carried explicit disclaimers stating that no exclusive rights were claimed over the standalone word “Yatra.”

Because of these disclaimers, the court ruled that Yatra Online could not expand its rights to claim monopoly over the word. The judgment reaffirmed that generic or descriptive words do not indicate the origin of goods or services, and thus lack distinctiveness.

Wider Legal Context

This ruling is consistent with earlier judgments. In 2023, the Delhi High Court held that words of common English usage cannot be registered as trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The law prevents the registration of marks that are descriptive or devoid of distinctive character.

Legal experts note that only terms that gain secondary meaning through long and exclusive use can qualify for trademark protection. Descriptive and generic words, on the other hand, remain free for all businesses to use.

Industry Impact

The ruling is a significant reminder for businesses in travel and other industries. Companies are encouraged to adopt distinctive brand names instead of relying on common words. Using descriptive terms may create recognition, but they cannot guarantee exclusivity.

Delhi High Court Suggests Zee Media Consider Logo Change in “Duniyadari” Trademark Dispute

by

The Delhi High Court has advised Zee Media Corporation to consider altering its logo in an ongoing trademark dispute with the India Today Group. The case revolves around the title “Duniyadari,” which both media houses are using for their news shows.

The Dispute

India Today Group, through its digital platform The Lallantop, has been running a popular show called Duniyadari since 2020. The programme attracts millions of views, with some episodes crossing 8.5 million views. The company claims strong goodwill and recognition for the mark.

Zee Media launched a Punjabi-language show with the same title, written in Gurmukhi script. India Today alleged that the use of “Duniyadari” in any form amounts to infringement and passing off, even after Zee removed a globe symbol from its logo.

Zee’s Argument

Zee Media argued that “Duniyadari” is a common Hindi expression that means “worldly affairs.” It said no company can monopolise such a generic term. The broadcaster further stressed that India Today’s registration covers only a stylised label and not exclusive rights to the word itself. Zee also referred to the 2013 Marathi film Duniyadari as proof that the term has long been in public use.

Court’s Observations

Justice Tejas Karia noted that the similarity between the two marks could confuse viewers who can read both Hindi and Gurmukhi. He said the marks appeared “prima facie deceptively similar.” The judge suggested that Zee could consider changing its logo if it wished to avoid prolonged litigation. However, he clarified that this was not a final ruling.

Next Steps

The Court directed Zee Media to file its reply by August 22, 2025. The matter will be heard again on September 2, 2025.

India Today expressed openness to resolve the matter through negotiation but maintained that Zee must stop using the “Duniyadari” mark if a settlement cannot be reached.

The case highlights the growing conflicts in India’s media industry over trademark ownership, especially when popular content crosses into multiple languages and regions.

“Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark: Delhi High Court

by

The recent judgement issued by Delhi High Court on February 7 says that the name “Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark which needs to be protected as per law.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while hearing a trademark suit filed by Tata Group and Sir Ratan Tata Trust against misusing the Tata brand, trademarks and the name of late Ratan Tata. [Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs Dr. Rajat Srivastava].
On February 7, 2025, the court prohibited Rajat Srivastava, from hosting an event under the name “Ratan Tata Icon Award.” The court also restricted him from using the name and photograph of the late Ratan Tata for any purpose, including conferring any awards. The judgement is to protect the reputation and legacy of Ratan Tata, a highly respected business figure and philanthropist. The injunction likely stems from concerns over the misuse of his name and image in a manner that could potentially mislead or cause confusion about his endorsement of such events.
Generally, a well-known trademark is a mark that has achieved such a high degree of recognition among the public. It’s a mark that’s so famous and recognizable that its mere presence evokes the brand in the minds of consumers.
The lawsuit filed by Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust emphasized the long-standing reputation and legacy of the Tata name, which has been a symbol of trust, quality, and ethical business practices in India for over 150 years. They argued that the unauthorized use of the Tata name and Ratan Tata’s image, particularly in the organization of events and awards, misled the public into thinking the Tata entities were endorsing them.
Rajat Srivastava and his organization, allegedly exploited the Tata brand’s goodwill by charging nomination fees for the event and promoting it across social media platforms. This created confusion among the public, making them believe the event was connected to or endorsed by the Tata Trusts. Despite the Tata Trusts issuing a takedown notice to stop such promotions, the defendants allegedly continued advertising the event, prompting the legal action.
The court ruled in favor of the Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trusts, granting them a permanent injunction against Rajat Srivastava and his organization. This means that the defendants are now permanently prohibited from using the Tata name, trademarks, or Ratan Tata’s image in any future events, promotions, or activities. However, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit confirming their commitment to not engage in such activities going forward.
While the plaintiffs, Tata Group and the Tata Trusts, expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling, they chose to waive any claims for damages or legal costs. This decision emphasizes that their main focus is on protecting the integrity of the Tata brand and preventing future misuse, rather than seeking any financial compensation.

Ratan_Tata_Vs_Delhi_todayDownload