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.
Divisional Applications in India: Evolving jurisprudence
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses elaborately the evolving jurisprudence of Divisional Applications in India. The article notes that in India, a divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970 may be pursued to overcome an objection by the Patent Office on the unity of invention, or voluntarily by the Applicant if the claims of the parent Application are directed to more than one invention. Citing a recent decision of the Delhi High Court, the authors note that in India, plurality of invention must be gleaned from a reading of the claims of the parent application and that the laws in other jurisdictions are relatively different on this point. The authors in this regard also point out certain principles as laid down in various decisions of the IPAB, that are to be adhered to while dealing with divisional applications. The authors end the article with a note that the principles laid out by the Courts may be relied upon for guidance in strategizing national phase entries and divisional applications thereon…
Ratio decidendi
Patents – Doctrine of Equivalents applicable for process/method patents as well – Delhi High Court
Trademarks – No passing off in use of word ‘VOGUE’ for an institute of fashion technology – Karnataka High Court
Trademarks – Argument of ‘family of marks’ available only to a Plaintiff – Delhi High Court
Mark ‘Dhola Tharu’ is deceptively similar to essential part of label mark using words ‘Dhola Maaru’ – Delhi High Court
Mark ‘HAIR SPA’ describes the characteristics of a product and is a common descriptive expression – Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Trademarks ‘SITARED’ and ‘SITARA-D’ are not deceptively similar
Trademark ‘Shopibay’ is phonetically similar to ‘ebay’
Trademark and automobile safety – High Court restrains use of mark ‘M.G.’ for automobile accessories
Marks ‘VOIVO’ and ‘VCLVC’ are deceptively similar to the mark ‘VOLVO’
