Skip to content
Subscribe

Latest Analyses

Browse every analysis published on Its IP Time.

Browse

Latest Analyses

trademark

Section 9 Trademarks: Absolute Grounds for Refusal Explained

Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 mandates that a mark must possess inherent distinctiveness to be registrable. Objections under Section 9(1)(a) for non-distinctiveness, Section 9(1)(b) for descriptiveness, and Section 9(1)(c) for customary trade usage pose significant hurdles that cannot be ignored. However, the proviso to Section 9(1) offers a critical path to registration if applicants can prove acquired distinctiveness through extensive evidence of use prior to the filing date. Distinguishing between absolute and relative grounds is essential for crafting a successful response to examination reports.

18 min read
Weekly IP Digest

Weekly IP Law Digest: June 21-27, 2026

This week's IP digest covers crucial Indian judicial developments, including the Delhi High Court's ruling on the Godfather trademark case, confirming that registered marks remain enforceable despite non-use. We explore critical patent insights from Shaafi Naturcure, where post-filing evidence was rejected, and Fraunhofer’s failed biomass patent. The digest also reviews high-stakes copyright battles, trademark rectification petitions involving 'Shakti', and the prestigious induction of Justice Prathiba M. Singh into the International IP Hall of Fame. Additionally, we analyze global IP trends, including US pharmaceutical patent disputes and CJEU platform liability rulings concerning algorithmic content curation.

12 min read
patent

NBA Approval Does Not Guarantee Patentability: Delhi HC Ruling

National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval provides no legal nexus to patentability under the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court in Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs confirmed that compliance with the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 does not satisfy the requirements for inventive step or Section 3(p) traditional knowledge exclusions. Patent applicants in the herbal medicine sector must establish synergy within the complete specification; post-filing affidavits cannot compensate for inherent disclosure gaps. Demonstrable technical efficacy remains the bedrock for valid patent protection in India.

14 min read
trademark

Can Registry Orders Ignore Replies? Delhi HC on Natural Justice

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the Trade Marks Registry must pass reasoned, speaking orders that substantively engage with an applicant's arguments. Failing to address specific submissions in an examination reply violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the refusal order legally untenable. Registrars must conduct a holistic assessment of a mark as a whole, rather than dissecting it, and evaluate distinctiveness specifically in relation to the goods applied for. This precedent mandates that the Registry move beyond boilerplate objections to provide transparent, reviewable justifications for all trademark registration denials.

13 min read
trademark

DRS Logistics v. Google: Delhi HC Clarifies Platform Liability

A trademark owner cannot hold an advertising platform in contempt for failing to proactively monitor third-party ads unless a court order explicitly mandates such surveillance. While platforms must adhere to their stated policies regarding trademark protection, the Delhi High Court clarifies that in India, these obligations are complaint-driven rather than automated. Litigants must ensure that any settlement or judicial undertaking is translated into an express operative direction within the final order, as contempt jurisdiction is strictly limited to the breach of explicit judicial mandates, not merely private policy commitments.

14 min read
trademark

Blue Cross v. Alto: Bombay HC Slaps 10 Lakhs on Infringers

Pharmaceutical brand owners can effectively protect their market position by coupling trademark registrations with copyright protection for packaging artwork. In cases of blatant imitation, Indian courts prioritize the 'average consumer' test, finding deceptive similarity where there is phonetic and visual overlap. Defendants who fail to contest proceedings reinforce the presumption of dishonesty. Under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, IP owners should proactively lead evidence on actual damages to move beyond nominal costs, ensuring their long-term investment in trade dress and brand identity is fully judicially recognized.

10 min read
trademark

Microtek v. Okaya: Delhi HC Rebukes Trademark Disparagement

Comparative advertising crosses the threshold into disparagement and trade libel when it relies on fabricated factual claims, such as falsifying court-ordered seizures or misrepresenting a competitor's legal status. Under the Trade Marks Act 1999, Sections 29(8) and 30(1) permit honest comparisons but withdraw safe harbor protections for campaigns that denigrate a rival's reputation through verifiable lies. The Delhi High Court’s swift intervention underscores that digital distribution of false narratives—including via WhatsApp and social media—subjects dealers and employees to immediate injunctive relief and potential liability for trade libel.

10 min read
trademark

Konaflex v. Koanaflex: Delhi HC Cancels Trademark Due to Confusion

Trademark infringement in India does not require identity; phonetic and visual similarity, especially in oral trade, creates deceptive similarity. The Delhi High Court confirmed that minor variations, such as inserting a single letter, fail to distinguish coined marks when the underlying trade context is prone to oral confusion. In pharmaceutical and industrial sectors where ordering occurs via verbal communication, courts apply the test of the ordinary, hurried purchaser. Trademark protection for coined marks remains robust, as these rely entirely on sound and shape to anchor consumer brand memory.

7 min read
patent

Bombay HC: Patent Remand Cannot Authorise Fresh Re-examination

A court-ordered remand to the Indian Patent Office for a fresh hearing does not grant the Controller a license to conduct a de novo examination or introduce new prior art. The Bombay High Court has ruled that unless explicitly authorized, a remand triggered by natural justice violations restricts the Controller to clarifying existing objections on the record. This ensures procedural fairness under the Patents Act, preventing the Patent Office from using a limited remand as a mechanism to relitigate an application beyond its original scope.

7 min read