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 has restrained a former franchisee from using the 'MOTI MAHAL' brand following a terminated agreement. This ruling clarifies that post-termination use of a licensed mark constitutes clear infringement. By highlighting the strength of franchise agreements as an IP tool, the Court protected the 100-year-old brand from unauthorized operations across physical outlets and online food aggregators. The decision is a vital reminder for brand owners that robust contractual terms and proactive enforcement are essential to maintaining exclusive rights and preventing irreparable harm in the competitive hospitality sector.
The Delhi High Court has issued a landmark ex parte ad-interim injunction against phishing operators targeting IndiaMart. The ruling is groundbreaking for its reach, involving international cloud providers like Vercel, Netlify, and GitHub as defendants to dismantle the infrastructure behind OTP relay attacks. By recognizing website GUI as copyrightable and treating cloud platforms as enablers of fraud, the Court has provided a new blueprint for IP enforcement in the digital age. This case demonstrates how Indian courts are now actively integrating cybercrime and IP protection to safeguard online businesses.
Understanding copyright infringement in India requires navigating complex principles like the originality threshold, the idea-expression dichotomy, and the scope of fair dealing. Courts assess infringement through the lens of a reasonable person, filtering out unprotectable elements such as historical facts or generic themes before comparing works. With the rise of digital piracy and AI, legal doctrines like dynamic injunctions and moral rights have become vital for creators. This guide breaks down the core legal frameworks that govern modern disputes, helping rights holders distinguish between actionable piracy and unavoidable similarities in shared subject matter.
A recent Bombay High Court order in Phonographic Performance Limited v. Trinetra Venture confirms that restaurants and public venues must obtain valid public performance licences to play music. Rejecting arguments against licensing obligations, the court clarified that playing sound recordings—whether via streaming services or radio—constitutes communication to the public under the Copyright Act, 1957. Hospitality operators often mistakenly believe consumer streaming subscriptions suffice for commercial use, but this ruling underscores the necessity of dedicated performance rights. Businesses are urged to ensure compliance to avoid costly litigation and potential injunctions that threaten their operations.
The Prada-Kolhapuri controversy exposes a critical gap in India’s Geographical Indications (GI) framework: protection often covers names, not aesthetic designs. Despite the Kolhapuri chappal’s GI tag, foreign brands can legally replicate traditional designs without infringement, provided they avoid using the GI name. While Prada eventually engaged with local artisans following public backlash, this resolution remains voluntary rather than legally compelled. This analysis explores why existing IP laws fail to stop the appropriation of traditional cultural expressions and suggests potential reforms to better shield India’s artisanal heritage from global exploitation.
As India commemorates the enactment of the Copyright Act, 1957, the legal system faces unprecedented pressure from generative AI and platform liability challenges. With major cases like ANI v. OpenAI and the Thaler DABUS authorship dispute ongoing, we analyze whether the current statutory framework—last amended in 2012—can withstand the digital age. This article explores the tension between Section 52 fair dealing provisions and the need for legislative clarity, while questioning the long-term impact of the current intermediary liability gap. Discover what these developments signal for India's creative economy and its future IP strategy.
In the landmark ruling of Hindware v. Google, the Delhi High Court has fundamentally shifted the framework of intermediary liability in India. Moving away from the 'visibility' test, the Court ruled that Google’s keyword auction mechanism constitutes active participation in trademark infringement. By monetizing coined marks for competitors, Google loses its Section 79 safe harbour protection. This 163-page judgment clarifies that active commercial participation by a platform triggers liability, regardless of whether the trademark appears in the ad copy itself. This is a critical precedent for all IP practitioners in India.
Is a copyright registration proof of ownership? The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Heineken Asia Pacific v. Vijay Keshav Wagh confirms that copyright registration is merely an administrative record of a claim, not a definitive verdict on originality. This case highlights the critical importance of the proviso to Section 45 and the necessity of mandatory search certificates when registering label artwork. We examine why copyright and trademark law are not mutually exclusive and how brand owners can rectify a falsely obtained registration. Protect your intellectual property by understanding these essential legal safeguards today.
A recent Delhi High Court ruling has reaffirmed that the patent examination process is not merely a formality. When the Patent Office issues a rejection order that fails to engage with the applicant's responses, it violates fundamental principles of natural justice. This article analyzes the case of VIB VZW v. Controller of Patents, where the court set aside a flawed rejection. We break down the necessity of the five-step inventive step test and why applicants must document every argument to ensure a fair and reasoned decision-making process.
The Liv-22 vs. Liv.52 dispute underscores a fundamental rule in Indian trademark law: changing a numeral is rarely enough to distinguish a brand. When a mark contains a dominant feature that has achieved significant market recognition, cosmetic alterations to suffixes or numbers are often dismissed by courts. This case reinforces that trademark protection focuses on consumer perception and the overall commercial impression of the brand rather than mechanical typography. For brand owners, this highlights the risks of attempting to piggyback on established goodwill through minor modifications.
•3 min read
Free Email Newsletter
Stay Ahead in IP Law with Its IP Time
Receive concise weekly and monthly IP Law updates.
