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.
Are the time limits prescribed by the Patents Act, 1970, mandatory or directory?
By T. Srinivasan, P Mahalakshmi and Niharika Tiwari
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses the prescribed timelines set under the Patents Act, 1970 and the Patent Rules, 2003, and throws insights on the flexibility of timelines set forth under different orders. It comprehends various scenarios where the extension of the breached timelines has been allowed and also the cases wherein the flexibility of the timelines was found not to be permissible. Elaborately discussing various case law, the authors note that it is the responsibility of the Patent agents and the Applicants to strictly adhere to all the deadlines and to have a clear understanding on the deadlines which can be extended and deadlines which cannot be extended in the prosecution of Patent Applications. They note that though under suitable circumstances the Courts are liberal in extending the timelines, the Courts also insisted that these provisions regarding the timelines relating to various stages of a patent application are mandatory and not merely directory and therefore can only be extended in special circumstances where sufficient reasons are afforded…
Ratio decidendi
Trademarks – International registration – Deemed protection under Section 35E(5) cannot be extended when opposition filed within time – Delhi High Court
Commercial suit involving urgent relief – Pre-institution mediation – No requirement of application seeking exemption – Delhi High Court
Designs – Market survey cannot establish lack of novelty and originality – Delhi High Court
Trademarks – Words ‘Fly High’ are descriptive of aviation sector – Use of words ‘Fly Higher’ as descriptor (and not trademark), for different services, not infringes trademark ‘Fly High’ – Delhi High Court
Trademarks – Registrar cannot condone delay beyond period prescribed in Rule 119 for filing review – Delhi High Court
Patents – Territorial jurisdiction for revocation applications and appeals clarified – Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Patents – No deemed abandonment in case of fault of patent agent
Copyrights – Invocation of Section 64 by police is non-application of mind
Trademarks – ‘GLOW-GETTER’ as a composite mark cannot be rejected in Sections 9 and 11
Patents – Scope of submission of written submissions post heading
Trademarks – Benefit of Section 35, covering bona fide use of own name, when not available
Territorial jurisdiction of Court – Spill over of advertisement not material
