ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Intellectual Property Law firm India

  Summary The Madras High Court delivered a significant ruling overturning the Patent Office's refusal of a patent application for computer-related invention, clarifying that CRIs are patentable when they demonstrate technical contribution, even without novel hardware. Introduction On November 4, 2025, the Madras High Court, through Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, overturned the Patent Office's rejection of Ab Initio Technology LLC's patent application for "Graphic Representations of Data Relationship." The invention, filed in July 2010, presented a novel method for tracking and representing data lineage in complex data systems. After nearly a decade of examination and amendments, the Patent Office rejected it in July 2020 under Section 2(1)(j) for lacking novelty and inventive step, and under Section 3(k) as a "computer programme per se." The Court's intervention was sought to determine whether the invention constituted a patentable computer-relat...

  Summary The Supreme Court refused to entertain petitions filed by Bata India and Liberty Shoes challenging the Delhi High Court's July 2025 judgment that restored Crocs Inc. USA's passing off suits against several Indian footwear manufacturers, holding that the trial court must independently consider the cases without being influenced by appellate observations. Background The dispute stems from Crocs Inc. USA's longstanding litigation before the Delhi High Court alleging that multiple Indian footwear companies—including Bata, Liberty, Relaxo, Action Shoes, Aqualite, and Bioworld Merchandising—copied the shape, configuration, and perforated design of its popular foam clogs. Crocs contended that these elements constitute its trade dress or shape trademark, and that the Indian manufacturers were misleading consumers and benefiting from Crocs' global reputation by producing substantially similar footwear designs. February 2019 Single Judge Order In February 2019, a single...

  Summary The Indian Trade Marks Registry made history by accepting the country's first olfactory (smell) trademark - a rose-like floral fragrance infused into tyres by Sumitomo Rubber Industries - marking a paradigm shift in Indian trademark law by recognizing non-conventional intangible marks beyond traditional words, logos, shapes, colours, and sounds. A Historic First for Indian Trademark Law On November 21, 2025, the Indian Trade Marks Registry achieved a historic milestone by accepting India's first olfactory (smell) trademark:   "a rose-like floral fragrance infused into tyres"   filed by Sumitomo Rubber Industries. This landmark decision opens an entirely new dimension in Indian intellectual property law, recognizing that trademark protection extends beyond conventional sensory marks such as words, logos, shapes, colours, and even sounds, to encompass intangible non-conventional marks like scent. The acceptance of this olfactory mark represents a significant e...

  Summary The Supreme Court held that the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 cannot be mechanically applied to intellectual property infringement cases involving continuing violations, establishing a five-point test to determine when suits 'contemplate urgent interim relief' and thereby qualify for exemption from mandatory mediation. Background and Legal Framework Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, mandates pre-institution mediation for all commercial suits, requiring parties to attempt settlement through mediation before approaching the court. However, the provision contains an exception: suits that "contemplate any urgent interim relief" are exempt from this mandatory mediation requirement. The present case arose from an intellectual property dispute where Novenco Building and Industry A/S filed a patent and design infringement suit against Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The ...

  Summary The Supreme Court transferred a patent infringement suit from Delhi High Court to Bombay High Court, holding that the first-filed groundless threats suit should be adjudicated alongside the subsequent infringement claim to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, and clarifying that Section 106 groundless threat suits can proceed independently under the Patents Act, 1970. Background The dispute arose following the commercial launch of Atomberg Technologies' "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier in June 2025. Atomberg alleged that Eureka Forbes engaged in conduct designed to intimidate and pressure its commercial distributors by issuing threats of legal action for alleged patent infringement. In response, Atomberg initiated legal proceedings under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, filing a suit for groundless threats of infringement in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025. Shortly thereafter, on July 7, 2025, Eureka Forbes filed a patent infringement ...