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.
Delhi High Court expounds on Doctrine of Equivalence and parallel import under patent law
By Vindhya S. Mani
The article discusses elaborately the recent decision of the Delhi High Court where the Court applied the concept of Doctrine of Equivalence to arrive at the finding of a prima facie case of infringement and also dismissed the exemption of parallel import under Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘Act’). Relying on the experts’ report, the Court narrowed the controversy to ascertaining whether the two missing elements were so essential that their absence would disentitle the Plaintiff to an injunction. It relied on the Doctrine of Equivalence to examine if the substituted element in the infringing product does the same work, in substantially the same way, to accomplish substantially the same result. On Section 107A(b), the Court was of the view that the term ‘patented product’ , in the light of the definitions of ‘patented article’ , ‘patent’ and ‘invention’ , would include only those products which are patented under the Indian Patents regime. The author states that the instant case has brought to the fore concepts in patent law that Indian Courts have not examined yet, in much detail. According to her, this decision is an indication that Indian Courts, especially the Delhi High Court with the newly constituted IP Division is set to augment the patent law jurisprudence in India by tackling more nuanced issues and concepts...
Statute Update
Delhi High Court notifies Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules
Delhi High Court notifies Rules governing patent suits
Ratio decidendi
Copyrights – Difference in number of horses would not make a qualitative difference to allow registration as original artistic work – Delhi High Court
Trademark ‘CASINOS PRIDE’ not infringes marks ‘BLENDERS PRIDE’ and ‘IMPERIAL BLUE’ but there is prima facie case of passing off – Delhi High Court
Ex-parte ad-interim injunction against unknown persons not permissible – Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Trade mark ‘STANDARO’ deceptively similar to mark ‘STANDARD’
Review not maintainable when error is on account of alleged misunderstanding of pleadings
Copyrights – YouTube Channel is similar to a company owned exclusive showroom
Trademarks and law of inheritance
No exclusive right over laudatory word ‘super’ even if ‘super cutes’ registered
IPD suits – No separate application required for exemption from entering pre-institution mediation when urgent interim relief sought
