intellectual property

India’s Intellectual Property Ecosystem: A Record-Breaking Year Insights From The Annual Report 2024–25 Published By The Patent Office

Insights from the Annual Report 2024–25 published by the Patent Office

Summary: India’s intellectual property ecosystem achieved a record-breaking year in FY 2024-25, with total filings surging nearly 20% across patents, trademarks, designs, GIs, and copyrights. This growth signals rising confidence in domestic innovation and the effectiveness of modernisation initiatives like digitisation and AI integration. For readers, the report highlights India’s evolving IP landscape, offering insights into opportunities, challenges, and the country’s strengthening global position in intellectual property protection.Continue Reading India’s Intellectual Property Ecosystem: A Record-Breaking Year Insights From The Annual Report 2024–25 Published By The Patent Office

Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Appeals in Trademark Matters: Exploring the theory of ‘trappings of court’ vis-à-vis Registrar’s office

Summary: In a significant ruling that clarifies the appellate framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ( “the Act”), and Trade Marks Rules, 2017 ( “the Rules”), the  Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (“Hon’ble Division Bench”) has held that a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal under Section 91 of the Act. The judgment in Glorious Investment Limited vs. Dunlop International Limited & Anr., TEMPAPO-IPD 5 of 2025, provides crucial insights into the legislative intent behind the current trademark regime, the nature of quasi-judicial authorities under the Act, as well as the applicability of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”).Continue Reading Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Appeals in Trademark Matters: Exploring the theory of ‘trappings of court’ vis-à-vis Registrar’s office

CAM COMMENT: The Calcutta High Court’s new IP Division recently set aside the Deputy Registrar of Trademark’s unreasoned orders that allowed the registration of the “Dunlop” word mark for eight product categories on a “proposed to be used” basis. This landmark judgment, arising from appeals filed by Sumitomo Rubber Industries, underscores the critical importance of procedural fairness, detailed consideration of material facts (including fraud allegations), and the necessity for reasoned decisions in intellectual property adjudication before the new IP Division. It serves as a significant precedent, emphasising rigorous standards for trademark registration processes and judicial review within the new specialised divisions.Continue Reading Calcutta’s New IP Division Delivers Landmark Judgment: Sets Aside Unreasoned Trademark Orders

The digital age has revolutionized news consumption and public discourse, with online platforms becoming hubs for critiquing current events and sharing diverse perspectives, often by using short excerpts (“clips”) from existing news broadcasts and other copyrighted material. This practice, while fostering a dynamic information ecosystem, lies at the intersection of copyright protection and freedom of expression. A recent dispute between a major news agency and online commentators has brought India’s “fair dealing” doctrine to the forefront, questioning its application in the digital realm. This article examines fair dealing under Indian copyright law, focusing on short clips in news reporting and online commentary, supported by judicial precedents, and offers suggestions for navigating copyright issues.Continue Reading Fair Dealing in the Digital Age: Navigating Copyright for News and Online Content in India

Decoding Patent Infringement: Essential Elements, Equivalents, and Estoppel in Crystal Crop Protection v. Safex Chemicals

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.[1] offers insights into determining patent infringement, focusing on the essentiality of claimed elements, the application of the Doctrine of Equivalents, and the implications of Prosecution History Estoppel. The judgment highlights the importance of claim construction, and the binding nature of representations made during patent prosecution.Continue Reading Decoding Patent Infringement: Essential Elements, Equivalents, and Estoppel in Crystal Crop Protection v. Safex Chemicals

Weather “CROMPTON PEBBLE” and “PEBBLE” are similar or identical?

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited’s (Crompton) appeal has been dismissed, upholding the order that restrains Crompton from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in electric irons under the impugned “PEBBLE” trademark, due to V Guard Industries Limited’s (V Guard) application.Continue Reading Whether “CROMPTON PEBBLE” and “PEBBLE” are similar or identical?

Royally Challenged or Legally Sound? Examining Trademark Law through RCB v. Uber India

In the vibrant world of cricket, a sport intricately linked to the country’s cultural tapestry, fan banter — whether between individuals or Corporates — is not merely accepted; it is cherished. Yet, there lies a fine line between good-natured ribbing and the realms of trademark infringement or disparagement. When does humorous exchange tip over into the perilous territory of legal breach? This very question was at the heart of a recent Delhi High Court case, Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India Systems Private Limited & Ors., which saw the popular IPL franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) clashing off-field with ride-hailing giant Uber India.[1]Continue Reading Royally Challenged or Legally Sound? Examining Trademark Law through RCB v. Uber India

Reject patent application on merit, not for failing to follow procedure: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, on February 24, 2025, passed an order in Arcturus Therapeutics v. Controller of Patents[1], remanding the case back to the patent office for reconsideration by the Assistant Controller of Patents on merit.Continue Reading Reject patent application on merit, not for failing to follow procedure: Delhi High Court