BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out. Ericsson v. Lava case. Part 3

Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3

Several aspects of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Licensing were discussed in the Ericsson Vs. Lava Case, and in this post, we will discuss three of those: Royalty Stacking, Hold Up, and Hold Out. Continue Reading Exploring Patent Hold Up, Royalty Stacking, and Hold Out – Ericsson v. Lava – Part 3
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 12 hours ago 37Views 0Like

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case."

Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.

Unlicensed music played at sporting events can lead to copyright infringement lawsuits. This blog post explores a case where the event organizer blamed sponsors for the music, highlighting the complexities of copyright compliance during large events. Continue Reading Are you playing it Safe? Court encourages settlement in a music licensing case.
Case Reviews, Copyrights, Intellectual Property 2 days ago 47Views 0Like

Read more

Google's Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed

Delhi High Court upholds decision against Google LLC in patent appeal, imposes Rs.1 lakh fine for misleading disclosure. Case delves into inventive step assessment, citing prior art and user preferences. Authored by Sowmya Murthy, Patents Team, BananaIP Counsels. Case Citation: Google LLC v. The Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 395/2022 Continue Reading Google’s Patent appeal dismissed, fine of 1 Lakh imposed
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 4 days ago 22Views 0Like

Read more

Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal

Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision to refuse CEAT Limited’s trademark application for “FARMAX.” Citing significant delay and potential confusion with existing marks, the Court dismissed the appeal. The decision underscores the importance of timely action and highlights the necessity for distinctiveness in trademark applications. Learn more about the case: Ceat Limited vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks. Continue Reading Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 5 days ago 36Views 0Like

Read more

Ericsson v. Lava - Part 2

Section 3(k) principles – Ericsson vs. Lava – Part 2

While Part 1 of the Ericsson vs. Lava post series covered the summary of the court's judgement, this post discusses the principles reiterated by the Court recently in the Ericsson vs. Lava case, for analyzing inventions in the context of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.  Lava filed a counterclaim against Ericsson’s patents in which Lava challenged that the inventions claimed by Ericsson fell under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. In particular, Lava had pleaded in its…
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents April 12, 2024 54Views 0Like

Read more

A battle of SMITHS. Who owns the rights over the word 'SMITH'?

A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?

The Delhi High Court ruled in the case of A.O. Smith Corporation v. Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the defendants’ plea in a trademark infringement dispute. The court upheld A.O. Smith’s claim, restraining the defendants from using marks ‘STAR SMITH’ and ‘BLUE DIAMOND,’ citing potential confusion and dishonest adoption. Continue Reading A.O. Smith Vs. Star Smith: Who owns the right over the word ‘Smith’?
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks April 10, 2024 47Views 0Like

Read more

Custom image for the post titled "Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) - Part 1"

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1

In a comprehensive and extensive judgment, the Delhi High Court has recently adjudicated in favor of Ericsson in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The dispute was initiated by Ericsson against Lava over eight patents integral to the standards for 2G, Edge, and 3G technology implementations. Continue Reading Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Royalty Rates (Ericsson vs. Lava) – Part 1
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents April 8, 2024 65Views 0Like

Read more

Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User

Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User

In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court settled a decades-long dispute over the ownership of the ‘FIELDMARSHAL’ trademark. Confirming PM Diesel’s prior and legitimate usage since 1963, the court dismissed Thukral Mechanical Works’ claim based on a later acquisition. This judgment underscores the critical importance of prior user rights in trademark disputes. Continue Reading Court holds that FIELDMARSHAL Trademark belongs to PM Diesel, the Prior, Continuous and Legitimate User
Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks April 5, 2024 51Views 0Like

Read more