dispute

Metro Brands Gets Interim Relief from Bombay High Court in Trademark Dispute with MetBrands

by

In a significant development in a closely watched intellectual property dispute, the Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to Metro Brands Ltd., a leading Indian footwear retailer, in its trademark infringement case against a startup operating under the name “MetBrands.”

On Monday, the court acknowledged Metro Brands’ longstanding presence in the Indian market and the strong consumer association with its brand name. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the matter, directed MetBrands to refrain from using the contested name or any deceptively similar mark until further orders.

Background of the Dispute

Metro Brands, incorporated in 1955, is a household name in Indian footwear retail with a wide footprint across premium malls and shopping destinations. The company claimed that MetBrands, a relatively new player in the fashion and lifestyle segment, was deliberately using a name strikingly similar to its own, thereby creating confusion in the minds of consumers and riding on the goodwill it has established over decades.

In its petition, Metro Brands argued that “MetBrands” not only shares phonetic and visual similarities but also overlaps in the domain of lifestyle and fashion retail, increasing the likelihood of trademark dilution and brand misappropriation.

Court’s Observations

The Bombay High Court, while hearing the interim plea, noted the potential harm to Metro Brands’ reputation and consumer trust due to the similarity between the two names. The court stated that prima facie, the use of “MetBrands” could amount to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Justice Pitale observed: “Given the longevity and recognition enjoyed by the plaintiff [Metro Brands] in the Indian market, and the phonetic resemblance of the defendant’s brand name, a case for interim injunction is clearly made out.”

Response from MetBrands

MetBrands, in its defense, claimed that the brand name was independently conceived and not intended to mislead consumers. The company also emphasized its limited operational scale compared to Metro Brands, suggesting there was no deliberate attempt to confuse or exploit.

Despite this, the court ruled in favor of granting temporary relief to Metro Brands, citing the need to prevent potential consumer deception and preserve brand integrity.

Legal and Industry Implications

Legal experts see the decision as a strong reinforcement of the importance of brand protection and the judiciary’s proactive stance in safeguarding intellectual property rights. “This interim order sends a clear message to emerging businesses about the necessity of conducting thorough trademark checks and building brand identities distinct from existing market players,” said Renu Arora, a Mumbai-based IP attorney.

What’s Next

The matter is scheduled for further hearing in July 2025, when the court will examine the merits of the case in greater detail. Until then, MetBrands has been restrained from using the disputed mark in any commercial context, including advertising, packaging, and digital presence.

For now, the order comes as a strategic win for Metro Brands, reinforcing its hold over its brand identity while the legal proceedings continue.

Nobel Prize Winners Convince Court to Revive CRISPR Patent Dispute

by

In a significant legal development with profound implications for the future of genetic engineering, a U.S. federal appeals court has agreed to revisit a high-stakes patent battle over CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology. This decision follows a petition spearheaded by Nobel Prize-winning scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, who are seeking to reclaim intellectual property rights over one of the most groundbreaking discoveries in modern biology.

The CRISPR Breakthrough

CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary tool that enables precise editing of DNA, has transformed the field of genetics since its development in the early 2010s. The technology allows scientists to alter genes with unprecedented ease and accuracy, offering promise in treating genetic diseases, improving crops, and even combating climate change. In 2020, Doudna and Charpentier were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their pioneering work on CRISPR.

A Complex Legal Landscape

The CRISPR patent battle has pitted the University of California, Berkeley—where Doudna conducted much of her research—against the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. In 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled in favor of the Broad Institute, recognizing its claim over the use of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells, including human cells.

UC Berkeley had earlier filed for the foundational CRISPR patent, but the Broad Institute’s expedited filing and specific focus on eukaryotic applications earned it a separate, and so far, legally upheld claim. The dispute centers on whether the Broad’s innovations were obvious extensions of the original CRISPR work or merited independent patent protection.

The Revival of the Case

In a rare move, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has agreed to review the previous ruling, citing newly presented arguments and scientific evidence by the UC Berkeley team and their legal representatives. Doudna and her colleagues argue that the Broad Institute’s patents should be invalidated on the grounds that the underlying concept of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells was an “obvious” step from their foundational research.

“The decision to revisit the case acknowledges the evolving understanding of CRISPR’s development and the need to fairly assign credit for its invention,” said a UC Berkeley spokesperson.

Legal analysts believe that the court’s decision could reshape the landscape of biotechnology patents. “This is not just about who owns CRISPR,” said Lisa Morgan, a biotech patent attorney in Washington. “It’s about how intellectual property is awarded in rapidly advancing scientific fields.”

Scientific and Commercial Stakes

The implications of the patent dispute are enormous. CRISPR-based therapies are currently in clinical trials for conditions such as sickle cell anemia, cancer, and blindness. With billions of dollars in potential revenue at stake, the ownership of key CRISPR patents determines who can license the technology and at what cost.

The legal battle has also sparked concern within the scientific community over how intellectual property law intersects with collaborative research and open science. Many researchers argue that patent disputes could stifle innovation and slow the development of life-saving treatments.

What’s Next?

The appeals court is expected to hear oral arguments later this year, with a decision anticipated in early 2026. Until then, the scientific community, biotech firms, and investors will be closely watching the proceedings.

As the legal saga unfolds, the core of the dispute remains a fundamental question about innovation in science: Who truly owns a discovery when multiple researchers contribute to a single transformative breakthrough?

Ericsson and Lenovo Settle Patent Licensing Dispute, Arbitration to Resolve Remaining Issues

by
Ericsson and Lenovo have reached a settlement to partially resolve their ongoing patent licensing dispute, stemming from a multi-year, global patent cross-license agreement between the two companies.

Under the terms of the settlement, all current lawsuits and administrative proceedings initiated by both parties across multiple jurisdictions, including those before the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), will be withdrawn, effectively ending all ongoing patent-related legal proceedings.

Financial impacts from the partial settlement are expected to be recognized starting in Q2 2025. However, the two companies have agreed to pursue arbitration to fully and finally resolve the remaining issues related to their patent licensing dispute.

Ericsson, a leading player in mobile technology and a key contributor to 3GPP and global mobile standards, holds a robust patent portfolio of over 60,000 granted patents, further bolstered by its leadership in 5G technology. The company continues to invest heavily in research and development, with annual expenditures exceeding SEK 50 billion. Ericsson is optimistic about increasing its intellectual property revenues, particularly through new 5G agreements and expansion into other licensing areas in the long term.

The settlement between Ericsson and Lenovo marks a significant step in resolving the patent dispute, providing both companies the opportunity to focus on their business activities moving forward while continuing to engage in discussions through arbitration to address remaining licensing matters.

Mixed result for Nokia and Amazon in dispute over streaming technology

by

Nokia and Amazon had a mixed outcome at the Düsseldorf Regional Court as both companies were navigate legal disputes related to streaming technology.
Amazon and Nokia are involved in a legal dispute concerning multiple streaming technology patents, with the Regional Court Düsseldorf playing a key role in the rulings.

Patent EP 2 271 048 B1 (EP 048) filed by Amazon, explains a method for provisioning multimedia services that display additional information (like actor details) alongside streaming video. The court ruled that Amazon infringed this patent (case ID: 4c O 49/23). The court ordered Amazon to stop using the infringing technology in their video software and devices. Additionally, Amazon must provide information regarding the use of the technology since January 1, 2023, and compensate Nokia for damages incurred due to the infringement. To enforce this ruling, Nokia has to provide security in the amount of €646.75 million.

Patent EP 2 130 150 B1 (EP 150) filed by Nokia, discloses a systems and methods for arranging media files, such as recommending additional content to users. The court dismissed the infringement claim for this patent (case ID 4c O 50/23), meaning Amazon was not found to infringe on this specific technology.

The case was overseen by a panel of three judges namely Sabine Wimmers, Stephan Janich, and presiding judge Sabine Klepsch.