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.
In continuation of the article published last month in IPR Amicus, the article in this issue of newsletter further discusses the evolving law around Divisional Applications in India. Analysing two decisions of the IPAB and one of the Delhi High Court, the article notes that a divisional application can be filed when the claims of the parent application include a plurality of inventions however, the requirement that the claims of a divisional application have to be based on, more particularly, to have their route, or to be gleaned from, or clearly exist in, the claims of the parent application, appears to be a unique one and such a requirement is not seen in other major jurisdictions, such as Europe or the USA. According to the authors, while this requirement appears to somewhat narrow the scope of assessment of divisional claims, issues such as whether claims of a divisional application ought to be verbatim supported, or directly supported, or broadly supported, in the claims of the parent application, are open for discussion and adjudication…
Statute Updates - Public Notices
Patents - Hearing intimation of only 10 days to be given - Adjournments advised to be not for more than 10 days
Patents - Adjournment of hearings - Reasonable cause to be mandatorily specified
Ratio decidendi
Use of trademark in form of translation or transliteration amounts to infringement - Delhi High Court
Trademarks - Rectification petitions by defendant to be clubbed with civil suits - No requirement of staying civil suit - Delhi High Court
Framing of issues by Court - Court can at subsequent stage also frame issues not pressed earlier - Delhi High Court
Anti-dissection rule does not disallow significant part of two competing marks to be compared - Court also compares mental impact of competing words in the marks - Delhi High Court
Trademarks - Indirect use of misleading country of origin/manufacture is ‘material respect’ in definition of ‘false trade description’, which is not registrable - Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Order containing non-understandable reasons is worse than an unreasoned order
Not filing pre-grant opposition in proper format is not fatal
Jurisdiction of Commercial Court clarified
Facebook postings cannot be determining of person’s location at particular time
Trademarks - No interim protection if mark though registered but not used for long
Failure of Defendant in filing written statement - Court when can decree the suit without calling for affidavit in evidence
Generic disparagement - Not every generic comparison refers to market leader
