Search Results for "opposition proceeding"

506 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 506 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Hears Interim Injunction Application in Trademark Infringement Suit Concerning 'REGAL' Footwear Mark. Registered Proprietor Seeks Injunction Against Identical Mark Used by Defendant for Footwear Retail, Raising Prior Use and Acquiescence Defences.

The dispute arose in the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court in a suit for trademark infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'REGAL'...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Against IPAB Order for Violation of Natural Justice in Patent Pre-Grant Opposition. Pre-grant opponent not heard before allowing patent appeal, order set aside and matter remanded.

The petitioner, Dhaval Diyora, filed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 against the patent application of Respondent ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Sets Aside Patent Opposition Dismissal for Lack of Reasoning and Non-Application of Mind. The court quashed the Deputy Controller's order as it failed to provide reasons and assess prior art under Section 25(2)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, violating principles of natural justice.

The dispute arose from a post-grant opposition filed by the petitioner under Section 25(2)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging Patent No. IN 2830...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Writ Appeals Filed by Upa-Lokayukta Against Dismissal of Writ Petition Challenging Communication Under Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 – Single Judge Held Petition Not Maintainable

The appellant, Justice Subhash B. Adi, is the incumbent Upa-Lokayukta of Karnataka, appointed in 2013 under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. On 27 N...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging IPAB Order Refusing Additional Evidence in Trademark Opposition. Court holds that the IPAB's refusal to allow additional documents was not perverse or arbitrary, and the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for not producing them earlier.

The petitioners, M/s. Agar Distributors (India) and Shri Siraj Amirali Soorani, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16 July 2010 passed b...