Skip to content
Subscribe

Latest Analyses

Browse every analysis published on Its IP Time.

Browse

Latest Analyses

trademark

Devans Modern Breweries v. Cartel Bros: Delhi HC Cancels Whisky Mark

A registered trademark proprietor maintains an exclusive, enforceable right under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 even without continuous use, preventing competitors from exploiting their brand. The Delhi High Court confirmed that beer and whisky qualify as allied and cognate goods due to shared retail channels and regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, the anti-dissection rule cannot be used to insulate a dominant, registered word mark from infringement simply by embedding it within a composite label or adding celebrity endorsements, as such cosmetic changes fail to prevent consumer confusion.

13 min read
trademark

Delhi HC on Section 57: Rectifying Trademark Entries Post-IPAB

Trademark rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 is the primary legal mechanism for aggrieved parties to challenge fraudulently registered or unused marks. Following the abolition of the IPAB, jurisdiction is strictly determined by the registry that processed the impugned entry, though courts now pragmatically apply the principle of forum conveniens to consolidate parallel proceedings. To successfully invoke Section 57, a petitioner must establish a clear nexus as an aggrieved person and navigate the mandatory Section 124 procedural requirements when an infringement suit is already pending before the High Court.

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
Weekly IP Digest

Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: June 15-20, 2026

This week's IP law digest covers critical developments in Indian jurisprudence. The Bombay High Court affirmed territorial restrictions for media brands, while the Delhi High Court clarified the limits of contempt jurisdiction regarding keyword ads on Google. We also explore significant rulings on patent examination, comparative advertising, and personality rights, including Preity Zinta's move against AI deepfakes. Internationally, the US Supreme Court's decision on skinny labels and new patent rulings from the UPC and China highlight the evolving landscape of global intellectual property enforcement and strategic brand protection.

15 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
Copyright

Zee vs. Libas: Instagram Music and Commercial Copyright Risks

Using the Instagram music library for brand promotional content constitutes unauthorized commercial exploitation of sound recordings, violating the owner's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act 1957. While platforms provide technical access to music, this does not grant a synchronization license for commercial advertising or brand marketing. Recent judicial trends, including the Delhi High Court's stance in Zee vs. Libas, confirm that fair dealing exceptions are inapplicable to commercial activities, necessitating that brands secure direct licenses from copyright owners to avoid infringement litigation and significant liability for damages.

11 min read
patent

Patent Rights vs Antitrust: Supreme Court Stays CCI Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of India in CCI v. Swapan Dey is currently determining whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) holds jurisdiction over anti-competitive practices tied to patent rights. While the NCLAT previously argued that the Patents Act 1970 operates as a self-contained code, the Supreme Court has stayed this exclusion, signaling that patent exclusivity cannot shield owners from antitrust scrutiny. This case is pivotal for clarifying how Section 3(5) of the Competition Act interacts with patent monopolies to prevent the abuse of a dominant position in Indian pharmaceutical markets.

8 min read
trademark

Bombay HC Restrains ‘New Indian Express’ Mumbai Operations

Trademark rights derived from settlement agreements and consent decrees are strictly governed by their explicit territorial and functional scope. The Bombay High Court in Indian Express v. Express Publications (Madurai) ruled that a permitted user cannot unilaterally expand trademark use to commercial events outside designated regions. The decision underscores that adding prefixes like 'New' to a registered mark does not grant independent proprietary rights that bypass the terms of a court-recorded agreement. Contractual limits on licensing are binding, and courts will narrowly construe derivative usage in family business splits.

12 min read