Olive Law

Recently, in an interesting decision, the Supreme Court dismissed MakeMyTrip India's plea to restrain Google from using its trademark. The key issue in the case is whether use of MakeMyTrip’s registered trademarks as keywords in the Google Ads Program by its competitor, Booking.com, constitutes trademark infringement. The learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court had restrained the defendants (Google, Google India, Booking Netherlands and Booking India), from using the mark ‘MakeMyTrip’ together/in conjunction, with or without spaces as a keyword on the Google Ads Program. An appeal was filed by Google against the ad interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in a suit filed by MakeMyTrip. In appeal, the Division Bench set aside the impugned order and held that the use of MakeMyTrip’s trademarks as keywords by Booking.com, in the absence of any confusion or unfair advantage, does not constitute trademark infringement under the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act.

On 15th April, Goa Bench of Bombay High Court dealt with an interesting issue on the interpretation of the term ‘Court’ under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This has been a subject of debate, with divergent views expressed by different courts. One view is that term ‘Court’ should be interpreted as the High Court in the case of domestic arbitration, as per the definition provided in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The other view is that ‘Court’ referred to in Section 29A(4) should be interpreted as the court of original civil jurisdiction, i.e., the District Court. Given conflicting views, the court recognized the need for an authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench to resolve this issue and provide clarity on the appropriate ‘Court’ that has jurisdiction to hear applications under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. You can read the judgment here.

We share a summary of an important decision from the Delhi High Court. This case involves a dispute between Novartis AG (the plaintiff) and Natco Pharma Limited (the defendant) over Indian Patent IN 276026 (the “suit patent”), titled “Novel Pyrimidine Compounds and Compositions as Protein Kinase Inhibitors”. The suit patent claims a compound called Ceritinib, which is used in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The defendant, Natco Pharma Limited, was manufacturing and selling Ceritinib in the open market without obtaining a license from the plaintiff, Novartis AG, the holder of the suit patent. As a result, Novartis AG filed a suit (CS (COMM) 229/2019) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from exploiting the suit patent. Here's the complete summary of the decision. (made by our AI tool)

We are thrilled to share that our Partner Mandakini Ghosh is now an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court.

We wish everyone happy holidays - see you in the new year!