Author: Amith Krishnan
Case in Point: Sun Pharma Ltd vs. DWD Pharma Ltd
Case in Point is a new series where we discuss case laws and explain certain basic concepts which may be useful to all practitioners and students alike. The first part of this series focusses on the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd[1], wherein the Delhi High Court in an Order 39 Rule 4 application preferred by the Defendant, had imposed costs on the Plaintiff for suppression of material facts but at the same time confirmed the ad-interim ex-parte order of injunction granted to the Plaintiff. The judgment is succinctly put, merely 24 pages but provides an opportunity to revisit certain concepts. Brief Facts: The Plaintiff claimed that the defendants mark ‘FOLZEST’ infringed its mark ‘FORZEST’. The Delhi High Court on 19.05.2022 had granted an ad-interim ex-parte order from infringing the Plaintiff’s mark. Thereafter the Defendant preferred an application under Order…
Recent FAQs Published by the Indian Patent Office on Form 27
The Indian Patent Office recently released a comprehensive FAQ document…
A Comprehensive Guide to Patent Searches: Types, Examples, and When to Use Them
Patent searches are a crucial aspect of the patenting process.…
Microsoft vs. Indian Patent Office – Decisions by Delhi High Court on Software Patents in India
The part of this series focuses on the…
Case in Point: Sun Pharma Ltd vs. DWD Pharma Ltd
Case in Point is a new series where…
Categories
Recent Discussions
Recent FAQs Published by the Indian Patent Office on Form 27
The Indian Patent Office recently released a comprehensive FAQ document regarding Form 27, aimed at clarifying the requirements and procedures for patentees and…
Recent Discussions
A Comprehensive Guide to Patent Searches: Types, Examples, and When to Use Them
Patent searches are a crucial aspect of the patenting process. Whether you're an inventor, entrepreneur, or a legal professional, understanding the different types…