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.
Patents – Delhi High Court rules on disclosure vis-à-vis invalidity on ground of obviousness
By Archana Viswanathan and Dr. Malathi Lakshmikumaran
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus elaborately discusses a recent decision of the Delhi High Court wherein the Court clarified that the mere coverage in every case does not result in obviousness. It also confirmed that the patent applications related to selection inventions may be granted, provided they satisfy three conditions. The High Court also held that coverage and disclosure are distinct concepts. According to the authors, the Court however gave a debatable justification that Chlorantraniliprole was manufactured from the Markush moiety claim by Patentee and no other manufacturer/Defendants had made any effort to manufacture CTPR all these years during which patent IN 204978 remained valid..
Statute Update
Draft Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021
Ratio decidendi
Passing off – Misrepresentation occurs only when plaintiff’s prominent feature embodied in defendant’s product to lead to relevant connection – Karnataka High Court
Trademarks – Anti-dissection rule not imposes complete embargo for considering constituent elements – Delhi High Court
Broadcasting of copyrighted material – Supreme Court sets aside Madras HC’s interim order relaxing provisions of Rule 29(4)
Court cannot supplant terms of the provision through judicial interpretation by re-writing statutory languages – Supreme Court
No confusion between ‘Le-Vel’ and ‘Level’, being used for different goods – European Union’s General Court
No similarity between goods even if distribution channels overlap – European Union’s General Court
News Nuggets
Passing off in ‘get up’ or packaging – Karnataka High Court summarises principles
Design claim is limited to article of manufacture identified in the claim
Confusing and deceptive similarity between ‘ALDIGESIC P’ and ‘ALGESIC P’
Dispute after 3½ years of defendant’s registration – No injunction at interim stage against defendant without opportunity to respond
Passing off by a registered trademark – Suit maintainable
‘Namkeen’ is allied and cognate product to ‘Gajjak’ and ‘Rewari’
