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.
The article in this issue of L&S IPR Amicus discusses a peculiar situation where a trademark of one proprietor is found to be infringed by another, by use of recycled bottles or containers of that proprietor for sale of goods or products by the latter in those recycled containers. Elaborately analysing a recent Delhi High Court decision, it navigates through the applicability of the statutory provisions in a case when recycled beer bottles of one proprietor were used by another by re-labelling them when the proprietor’s trademark was embossed on such bottles. Holding that such sale resulted in infringement and passing off, the Court also directed the Defendant to exercise a greater degree of supervision at their manufacturing plant and conduct random checks and inspections to ensure that the bottles used in its manufacturing plant do not, in any manner, bear the mark of the plaintiff. Discussing few other case law, the authors point out that users of recycled products must apply a higher degree of caution while using recycled products to ensure that they do not even might inadvertently infringe the trademark of some other party…
Ratio decidendi
Patents – Amendment to claims on directions of Controller – Filing of Form 13 and notice to opponent not required – Delhi High Court
Patents – Bar of patentability under Section 3(d) – Non-identification of ‘known substance’ is fatal – Delhi High Court
Trademark – Use of mark ‘Tata’ – Targeting in India by foreign company’s website – Delhi High Court
Process patent – Use of different reagent with different sequence of reaction is significant enough to fall out of rigours of Doctrine of Equivalents – Delhi High Court
Trademarks – Device marks – Phonetic identicality is not enough – Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Not providing reasons for rejecting application for grant of patent is fatal
Trademark disparagement – Not open for advertiser to send a message that quality of goods of his competitor is bad
Trademarks ‘Steelbird’ and ‘Seabird’ are phonetically similar
Trademarks ‘Carlsberg’ and ‘Tensberg’ are deceptively similar
Trademarks ‘ZIPOD’ and ‘ZOYPOD’ are deceptively similar – Dissimilarity in packing is not relevant
Trademark infringement by passing of old and used goods of plaintiff as new products of defendant, after tampering with labels
