We are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
We started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
We and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
Recently, Indian Courts have taken a proactive stance towards awarding increasing sums of damages for infringement in IPR matters. However, to balance competing goals of compensation, justice and uniformity, Courts have laid down several parameters which are to be considered while calculating damages. The first article in this issue of IPR Amicus, while exploring the subject, analyses various case law and the Intellectual Property Division Rules as issued by the Delhi High Court. The authors note that in so far as uncontested matters are concerned, the computation of damages is on a subjective basis. According to them, while Courts have held that in such cases, damages are to be considered on a reasonable/fair basis and that the Court can only make a broad assessment of profits, basis the evidence on record; it remains to be seen how Courts will make such assessments and on what factors/parameters.
Not attending Hearing cannot be the basis for refusal of Patent application – Delhi HC remands matter
By Devesh Aswal and Vindhya S Mani
The second article in this issue of the newsletter discusses a recent decision of the Delhi High Court wherein the Court has held that non-appearance of the Applicant in the hearing before the Controller cannot dispense with the Controller’s obligation to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The High Court has held that the Appellant not attending the hearing cannot be the basis for passing a decision under Section 15 of the Patents Act. The Court in this regard also noted that the Appellant’s detailed response to FER casts a duty on the Respondent to pass a speaking order.
Statute Update
Decriminalisation of certain provisions in Patents, Trademark and GI laws – Provisions of Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 effective from 1 August 2024
Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024 notified
Ratio decidendi
Personality rights – AI tools enabling conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity, without latter’s permission, violate celebrity’s personality rights – Bombay High Court
Trademarks – ‘ENRIL’ and ‘NURIL’, used for medicines for different diseases, can coexist – Madras High Court
Associate Managers appointed under Trademarks Section 3(2) cannot pass quasi-judicial orders – Calcutta High Court
Search and seizure under Trade Marks Act – Non-compliance of proviso to Section 115(4) when not fatal – Karnataka High Court
News Nuggets
Patentability of computer programme – Rejection of patent application on ground that hardware was a general-purpose processor, memory and computing device, is wrong
Trademarks – Crocodile device mark – Delhi HC rules in favour of Lacoste on infringement but observes that reputation and goodwill not established for passing off
Patents – Combining different elements in alleged prior arts to somehow demonstrate lack of inventiveness is not correct
Global patent dispute between Intel and R2 Semiconductor – UK Court rules in favour of Intel while German Court sided with R2
Trademarks – Biscuit major restrained from using ‘Top Gold Star’
WIPO and India’s NITI Aayog join hands to develop programs for global south countries
US patents for gene therapy treatments – Sanofi sues Sarepta
