An Advocate enrolled on the rolls of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh. What started as curiosity about how the law protects ideas, brands, inventions, and creative works gradually developed into a genuine passion for studying and explaining IP law, inspiring me to pursue a Masters degree (LL.M.) in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
The Delhi High Court’s landmark interim order in Devans Modern Breweries v. Cartel Bros clarifies essential trademark principles for the liquor industry. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela confirmed that beer and whisky are allied and cognate goods despite pricing and alcohol content differences. The Court also held that a registered proprietor’s right to sue is not extinguished by non-use in a specific sub-category. Crucially, the anti-dissection rule cannot be used to mask the adoption of a dominant mark within a composite label. This ruling serves as a vital precedent for brand enforcement.
Trademark rectification is a critical tool for business owners to challenge invalid or abandoned registrations on the Register. Under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, parties can seek to cancel or vary registrations based on non-use, fraud, or deceptive similarity. Recent judicial developments, including the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Raman Kwatra, have introduced important nuances regarding forum conveniens and jurisdiction in a post-IPAB landscape. This guide provides a comprehensive breakdown of the grounds for rectification, the 'aggrieved person' standard, and the strategic interplay between rectification and pending infringement suits.
The Delhi High Court's ruling in Purpos Planet v. The Registrar of Trade Marks reinforces the fundamental requirement for quasi-judicial bodies to provide reasoned, speaking orders. When the Registry refuses a trademark application without addressing the applicant's substantive submissions—such as the anti-dissection rule or prior registrations—it violates natural justice. This case highlights the necessity of thorough examination practices and the right of applicants to receive a detailed explanation for rejection. The decision serves as a critical reminder that Registry orders must engage with the specific legal contentions raised by trademark applicants.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a contempt application filed by DRS Logistics against Google, clarifying the limits of platform liability in keyword advertising disputes. Justice Tejas Karia ruled that while Google remains bound by its policy-based undertaking to protect trademarks, prior court orders did not impose a proactive, continuous monitoring obligation on the platform. This judgment distinguishes between actionable keyword use and explicit Ad-Text appearances, offering a critical roadmap for trademark owners to navigate the complaint-based enforcement model currently preferred by Indian courts in digital advertising.
The Bombay High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favor of Blue Cross Laboratories, halting the sale of 'MEFIAL-SPAS' by Alto Healthcare. This case serves as a masterclass in pharmaceutical IP enforcement, combining trademark infringement and copyright claims to protect a long-standing brand identity. With a significant cost award of Rs. 10 Lakhs, the court reaffirmed its strict stance against blatant imitators. This article examines the court’s application of the deceptive similarity test, the importance of registering packaging artwork, and the consequences of failing to contest commercial IP litigation.
The Delhi High Court recently issued an interim injunction against deceptive advertising practices in the battery sector. In the case of Microtek v. Sukhveer Singh & Ors., the court addressed the misuse of court orders to spread false narratives about a competitor’s legal standing via social media. Distinguishing between acceptable comparative advertising and actionable trade libel, the court highlighted that false factual claims targeting a registered trademark are not protected speech. This ruling serves as a critical precedent for brand owners dealing with digital campaigns that damage market reputation through fabricated misinformation.
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.
The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that trademark infringement does not require identical marks, only deceptive similarity. In Konaflex v. Koanaflex, the court examined whether adding a single vowel to a brand name sufficiently distinguishes it. Concluding that the marks were phonetically and visually indistinguishable in the trade, the court granted an injunction. This ruling emphasizes that courts prioritize the practical realities of how orders are placed—often orally—over technical spelling differences. For business owners, this highlights the risks of adopting marks that ride too closely to existing coined brands.
Can the Indian Patent Office use a court-ordered remand as an excuse to restart an entire patent examination? The Bombay High Court's ruling in Qualyst Transporter Solutions LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents clarifies that a remand for a breach of natural justice does not grant the Patent Office a blank check. We analyze why the court restricted the Controller from introducing new prior art or fresh objections, ensuring that procedural corrections focus on existing records. This decision sets a vital precedent for limiting re-examination scope after remand.
The Zee v. Libas copyright case exposes a significant legal blind spot for many Indian brands: the assumption that Instagram's built-in music library grants commercial rights. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela’s ruling confirms that platform-level access for personal use does not equate to a license for brand promotions or commercial Reels. As Zee pursues litigation against major retailers like Nykaa and JioStar, it is clear that courts are now scrutinizing the line between platform access and illegal commercial exploitation. Brands must secure direct synchronization licenses to avoid severe copyright infringement liability.
•11 min read
Free Email Newsletter
Stay Ahead in IP Law with Its IP Time
Receive concise weekly and monthly IP Law updates.
