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.
Patent of method of treating a plant - Interpretation of Section 3(h)
By Eeshita Das and T. Srinivasan
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses a recent decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court which has set aside an order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs refusing the grant of patent for treatment of a plant disease, for being a method of agriculture under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court in this regard noted that Sections 3(h) which bars the patenting of a method of agriculture or horticulture, does not contemplate treatment of plants to render them free of disease, while Section 3(i) deals with the process of treatment or prevention. It also noted that vide an amendment in 2002 in Section 3(i), which at present bars method of treating a human being or an animal, words “or plants” were removed from its scope. The Court for this purpose stated that the Controller failed, to explain why the claimed invention should be considered to fall under ‘agriculture’ or to justify why prevention of disease or treatment would fall under agriculture, when there is a separate provision under Section 3(i).
Ratio decidendi
Patents Act, and not Competition Act, to govern conditions in agreement of licensing or abuse of status as Patentee - Delhi High Court
Plant Variety Protection - Registration to be revoked when incorrect information provided by an applicant - Court rejects plea of bona fide mistake and that error would not make any difference - Delhi High Court
Trademarks - Marks ‘INDAMET’ and ‘ISTAMET’, used for pharmaceuticals, are deceptively similar, both structurally and phonetically - Delhi High Court
Trademark - Advertisement when mere puffery and not disparagement - Delhi High Court
Trademarks - Non-filing of affidavit by way of evidence is not fatal to an application for well-known mark - Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Trademarks - Wires and cables are not allied and cognate to juicers, mixers, washing machines, pumps, and motors
No design infringement in case of representation in advertisement
Filing of evidence - Applicability of Trademarks Rules, 2017 to proceedings under Trademarks Rules, 2002 - Matter referred to Larger Bench
Submission of additional evidence - Covid-19 is a reasonable cause for both non-disclosure and non-filing - Plaintiff is not obligated to furnish a detailed disclosure in the plaint
Term ‘Emmentaler’ cannot be protected as a European Union trademark for cheese
