ANAND AND ANAND

The colour combinations of multi-dose inhaler of global pharma major Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA are now registered as trademarks in India. The inhaler’s shape has also been registered as 3D shape mark. Team ANAND AND ANAND led by Safir Anand obtained the TM declarations. Registered as colour marks are three colour combinations for the actuator of the inhaler and its cap -- Grey (on actuator) with Olive green (on cap); Grey (on actuator) with Pink (on cap); and Grey (on actuator) with Pantone Brown (on cap).

Senior Partner Safir Anand and Partner Tusha Malhotra feature in the ‘Forbes India Legal Power List 2023’ among the ‘Top 100 Individual Lawyers’ recognized for their seminal body of work. This also marks Safir’s fourth consecutive appearance on the Legal Power List for his exceptional work.

The Delhi High Court has delivered an injunction in favour of ITW GSE APS (Plaintiffs), restraining Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors (Defendants) from manufacturing and selling Pre-Conditioned Air Units (PCA Units) used in the aviation industry that infringe ITW’s patent. A PCA unit supplies fresh, clean air into parked aircraft. ITW’s patent IN 330145 relates to the PCA unit having multiple refrigeration systems controlled through a central controller, which manages the VFDs attached to the compressor in each refrigeration system. The central controller automatically adjusts the cooling, depending on the type of aircraft, the ambient temperature, humidity, cabin temperature etc. ITW GSE APS, represented by team ANAND AND ANAND comprising Pravin Anand, Vaishali R Mittal, Siddhant Chamola and Gursimran Singh Narula, submitted that the Defendants’ PCA unit infringed its patent. Plaintiffs’ claimed to have suffered a loss of about USD 6 million owing to the defendants providing infringing PCA units to different airports in India. Appearing for ITW GSE APS, Pravin Anand submitted that technical contribution of the patent was to ensure individual compressors in each refrigeration system to run at different speeds, and therefore, the PCA unit is operated at best and most efficient mode. The Court rejected Defendant’s invalidity challenge and held that new claim limitations cannot be “read-in” to cut down the clear meaning of patent claims. The Delhi High Court on July 4, 2024 observed that prima facie a case of infringement was made out based on mapping of ITW’s patent to Defendant’s Operation Manuals and technical requirements of tender documents.   Besides, there was no real rebuttal from the Defendants on the issue of mapping. The court has also asked the Defendants to file within four weeks an affidavit disclosing their turnover from the existing deployment of the model number PDX 60IS or any other product i.e. a Pre-conditioned Air Unit (PCA) which infringes plaintiffs registered patent no. IN 330145.

Partner Nupur Maithani explains the critical importance of adhering to strict deadlines for filing national phase patent applications in India. In an exclusive article for Asia Business Law Journal, Nupur highlights how missing the 31-month deadline for filing national phase applications in India under the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) can have severe repercussions for patent holders. While there have been fluctuations in the controller's power to extend this deadline under rule 138, recent court decisions have generally upheld its mandatory nature, says she. “Even though the amended rule 138 appears to permit an extension of time prescribed by any rule, the patent office does not appear to concur. Irrespective of whether delayed national phase filings are permitted in the future, it is important to note that rule 138 is a discretionary provision and extensions under the same are considered only if the applicant can establish an intent to pursue the application. Therefore, negligence is not likely to be condoned. In any event, it is best to be diligent and to comply with the 31-month deadline to avoid adverse consequences,” Nupur writes. Read the article here : https://lnkd.in/gkdQgtYq #patentlaw #intellectualproperty #patentapplication #AsiaBusinessLawJournal

Senior Associate Imon Roy conducted a session on ‘Intellectual Property Law in India’, at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA. The session provided an overview of intellectual property rights in India, focusing on patents, trademarks, and copyrights. As part of the School's Summer Programme, a delegation from Leeds Law School at Leeds Beckett University, UK, comprising three students and one faculty member attended the session to explore the Indian legal landscape and gain insights into its functioning.

Journalist Deepak Chaurasia’s recent comment on Bigg Boss OTT 3 is a testament to increased IP awareness in the country. The journalist, one of the contestants on the reality TV show, highlighted the host Anil Kapoor's successful defense of his signature "Jhakass" and his personality rights which were once being misused through AI tools. Anil Kapoor was represented by Team @Anand and Naik before the high court where our team also blew the lid of misuse of generative AI and dark patterns infringing the actors personality rights. “Mai Jhakass keh dunga to court paisa le lega mujhse kyunki wo Intellectual Property right ban gya hai Anil Kapoor sir ka…ye shabd mai bolunga nahi (If I say Jhakass, the court will impose a fine on me because it has now become Anil Kapoor’s intellectual property. I will not use this word),” Chaurasia said on the grand premier of the show hosted by the Bollywood actor, whose personality rights, including his distinctive way of saying ‘Jhakaas’ has been protected by the Delhi High Court. The court gave the landmark order on a suit filed by the actor through ‘Anand and Naik’ raising concern that AI was being misused to prejudice his hard-earned goodwill and reputation, and to impinge on his exclusive rights to commercially benefit from his persona. #intellectualproperty #BiggBossOTT3 #AnilKapoor #PersonalityRights Video credit: Jio Cinema

Congratulations Ms Archana Shanker for featuring in the Managing IP list of 'Top 250 women in IP' for the ninth time in a row. This list highlights female IP practitioners in private practice throughout the world for their exceptional work. Under Archana's leadership, we also continue to be Tier 1 in patent Prosecution. This streak is a testament of exceptional work delivered by our team over the years and our commitment to excellence in IP.

ANAND AND ANAND continues to be topmost Tier 1 firm for ‘trademark disputes’ and ‘trademark prosecution’ in Managing IP - IP Stars 2024 rankings. Featuring as ‘IP Stars are Pravin Anand, Safir Anand, Archana Shanker, Vaishali R Mittal and Neeti Wilson. Partner Prachi Agarwal features as ‘Notable Practitioner’.

Dr. Subroto Kumar Panda Ph.D. CIO - CTO, ANAND AND ANAND receives the CIO Accelerator X Awards 2024 in the legal services sector for his exceptional work in digital transformation through technology innovation and data-driven decision-making. 

The Delhi High Court has quashed a forgery case related to trademark registration documents filed by Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. against Colgate-Palmolive Company and its directors. Justice Amit Sharma dismissed the forgery case (Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v. KV Vaidyanathan & Ors)  on May 28 and set aside the Metropolitan magistrate court's summoning order of April 2, 2012.  The magistrate had issued summons to Colgate and others after finding prima facie evidence of forgery. The court said the present complaint against Colgate-Palmolive, represented by Team Anand and Anand comprising Saif Khan, achuthan sreekumar, and Rohil Bansal, would not be maintainable and the Magistrate could not have taken its cognizance. Colgate and Anchor have been involved in legal disputes over the use of red and white coloured trademark for their toothpastes. Colgate initiated multiple lawsuits against Anchor, alleging trademark infringement. Anchor filed the complaint against Colgate and its office bearers before a trial court alleging that they have committed offences related to forging of documents and making false claims before the Court. However, the High Court disagreed with the trial court's finding and held that Anchor’s allegations that the Colgate has committed forgery of a trade marks registration certificate is a mere presumption and cannot establish forgery. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the case of Anchor that the certified copy of certificate of registration issued, contrary to the advertisement published in the Trade Mark Journal, by the Deputy Registrar in collusion with Colgate would amount to forgery, is also not made out as in the present case both the alleged forged documents have been signed and sealed by the person authorised to do so, i.e, the Deputy Registrar. It also held that forgery of a document cannot be simply inferred but has to be established in accordance with law.  The HC held that two separate offences are made out by Anchor, one of which would fall within the meaning of Section 195 of the CrPC necessitating the procedure to be followed under Section 340 of the CrPC and it will not be possible to split these offences and the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC will apply. The Hon’ble High Court held that in the same course of transaction, two separate offences have been committed and for one set of offences, complaint of Court is mandatory and therefore, it is not possible to split them up. In view of the same the complaint with regard to other set of offences for which no complaint of Court is required cannot be sustained. Thus, the complaint filed by Anchor would not be maintainable and the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance. https://lnkd.in/gTV2VAHR