Intellectual Property

On 19 June 2020, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Respondent) issued a Public Notice (Recent Notice) to the effect that the deadlines for various acts/proceedings, filing of any reply/document, payment of fees, etc relating to any intellectual property matter (IP Filings) falling due after 15 March 2020 shall be the date as decided/ordered by Court (defined hereinafter).

On 18 May 2020, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Respondent) issued another Public Notice (New Notice) whereby the deadlines for various acts, proceedings, filing of any reply/document, payment of fees, etc relating to any intellectual property matter (IP Filings) falling due between 15 March 2020 to 17 May 2020 was fixed as 1 June 2020 and no extension was permitted for the deadlines falling beyond 17 May 2020.

In the matter of Intellectual Property Attorneys Association and Anr v Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and Anr, W.P.(C) No 3059/2020 (Writ Petition), the Delhi High Court (Court) passed an order dated 11 May 2020 (Order) extending the limitation period for various acts, proceedings, filing of any reply/document, payment of fees, etc. relating to any intellectual property matter (IP Filings) due on or after 15 March 2020 until further directions to be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In MRF Limited v Metro Tyres Limited [C.S. (COMM) 753/2017 & I.A. 12770/2017], the Delhi High Court (Court) in an order dated 01 July 2019 interpreted the term 'copying' in context of the Copyrights Act, 1957 (Act) for cinematograph films. The Delhi High Court ruled that 'copying' of a cinematograph film will include substantial copying of material to the extent that it resembles the original film and not merely a physical copy of the film created by a process of duplication.

In MRF Limited v Metro Tyres Limited [C.S. (COMM) 753/2017 & I.A. 12770/2017], the Delhi High Court (Court) in an order dated 01 July 2019 interpreted the term 'copying' in context of the Copyrights Act, 1957 (Act) for cinematograph films. The Delhi High Court ruled that 'copying' of a cinematograph film will include substantial copying of material to the extent that it resembles the original film and not merely a physical copy of the film created by a process of duplication.

In its latest judgment on trade mark infringement, the Delhi High Court (Court) in the case of Suzuki Motor v Suzuki (India) Limited1, passed a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against Suzuki (India) Limited (Defendant), as the Defendant in its written statement had failed to specifically deny the facts in the plaint, thereby, deeming the averments in the plaint to have been admitted.