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.
Patents – IPAB reaffirms principles of natural justice while discussing prior art documents and description
By VasanthVaidyanathan
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses elaborately, the recent decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board reaffirming the importance of the principles of natural justice in judicial and/or quasi-judicial decisions, whilst also clarifying aspects of patent law with respect to cited prior art documents and description of the invention. The IPAB criticised the Controller of Patents for having taken a contrary view as to the patentability of the instant application when it had been recognised in other countries. It emphasized that the Controller was duty bound to provide reasoning when taking a contrary view. The article also discusses at length various other aspects of the said decision like, Section 3(i) objection, prior art documents vis-à-vis Section 2(1)(j), non-provision of reasons for rejection under Section 3(d), admissibility of additional data, etc...
Ratio Decidendi
Designs – Transfer of design infringement suit to High Court not having Commercial Court Bench – Supreme Court
Trademark infringement by use of same words, though as abbreviation, for same class of goods – Delhi High Court
Patents – Obviousness and non-compliance of Section 8(2) – Delhi High Court
Trademarks – Passing off when cannot be pressed – Delhi High Court
Designs – Prior publication – Scope of Sections 4(b) and 6(4)(b) of Designs Act – Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Copyright registration is not mandatory
Trademarks – Confusion over use of mark ‘Aachi’ for restaurants
Facebook – Delhi High Court grants interim injunction against use of mark ‘Facebake’
Whitehat Jr – Delhi High Court directs taking down of alleged defamatory Tweets
