IP Intelligence
Landmark judgments, legislative updates, and practice notes from the Aswal Associates team — covering India, China, ASEAN, Europe, and South Asia.
"Statutes must be interpreted in light of technological advancements and contemporary commercial realities — digital designs deserve the same protection as physical designs."— Calcutta High Court, NEC Corporation & Ors. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, March 2026
The Delhi High Court Division Bench delivered a landmark judgment in Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. (March 11, 2026), reinforcing the foundational principle that prior user rights in trademarks override both subsequent registration and well-known mark status. The Court restrained Kent RO Systems — despite holding a well-known KENT mark for water purifiers and home appliances — from manufacturing and selling fans under the KENT mark, holding that Kent Cables' prior use of KENT for electrical goods including fans since 2006, coupled with Kent RO's acquiescence and delay, established superior rights.
Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. adopted and commenced use of the mark KENT for electrical cables and allied goods including fans since 2006. Kent RO Systems, a well-known manufacturer of water purifiers, subsequently expanded its product range to fans under the KENT mark. Kent Cables filed suit seeking to restrain Kent RO from using the KENT mark for fans and electrical goods, asserting prior user rights. Kent RO resisted, relying on its well-known mark status, registered rights, and extensive reputation built over years of use for water purifiers and home appliances.
1. Can a well-known mark status override prior user rights?
2. Does acquiescence and delay bar a senior registered proprietor's injunction claim?
3. What is the scope of protection for a well-known mark in a multi-category dispute?
Prior Use Establishes Superior Rights: The Court held that Kent Cables' use of KENT for electrical goods and fans since 2006 — predating Kent RO's entry into these product categories — established superior common law rights in the electrical goods segment. The principle that the first user of a mark in trade has superior rights operates regardless of whether the senior user holds a registered trademark.
Well-Known Mark Does Not Confer Universal Monopoly: The Court clarified that well-known mark status under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 11(6) does not grant an absolute right to use a mark across all product categories against all prior users. The protection afforded to well-known marks is directed primarily at preventing third parties from unfairly trading on the mark's reputation — it does not extinguish the rights of prior users who have built their own independent goodwill in specific market segments before the well-known mark holder entered that segment.
Acquiescence and Delay Are Fatal to the Injunction Claim: The Court found that Kent RO was aware of Kent Cables' use of the KENT mark for electrical goods for a substantial period and failed to act. This acquiescence, combined with significant delay in initiating legal proceedings, disentitled Kent RO to the equitable remedy of injunction. Where a trademark owner stands by while another builds up a business and goodwill under the same mark, it cannot later come to equity seeking to destroy what it permitted to be built.
Allied Goods Doctrine Applied Narrowly: Kent RO argued that fans are allied or cognate goods to its product range (electrical home appliances and water purifiers). The Court applied the allied goods doctrine narrowly — the relevant question is not merely whether goods fall within the same broad product category, but whether a consumer encountering both in the market would be likely to believe they originate from the same source. Given Kent Cables' long-established independent identity in the electrical goods space, no such confusion was likely in the relevant market segment.
The Delhi High Court Division Bench ruled in favour of Kent Cables, restraining Kent RO Systems from manufacturing, marketing, and selling fans under the KENT mark. The Court found Kent Cables' prior use since 2006, acquiescence by Kent RO, and the absence of likelihood of confusion in the relevant market segment established the legal and equitable basis for the injunction.
1. Priority of Prior Use Over Well-Known Status: This decision provides critical clarity that well-known mark protection supplements, but does not displace, the foundational common law principle of prior use. Businesses that have built up use of a mark in a defined product category can assert and defend those rights even against registered and well-known mark holders who subsequently enter that category.
2. Acquiescence as a Complete Defence: The judgment is a significant reminder that trademark enforcement must be timely. Long periods of inaction while a competitor builds goodwill under the same mark may extinguish the right to injunctive relief — even for registered and well-known mark holders.
3. Limits on Well-Known Mark Expansion: Well-known status is not a passport for unlimited expansion into new product categories against established prior users. Its primary function is to protect the mark's reputation from exploitation by third parties, not to override prior users' independently established rights.
4. Strategic Implications: Brand owners seeking to expand product lines under an established mark should proactively monitor for prior users in the expansion category and take timely action. Once a competitor builds substantial goodwill under the same mark, injunctive relief becomes increasingly difficult to obtain regardless of well-known status.
` }, 'calcutta-gui': { cat: 'Designs · Calcutta HC · Digital IP · Landmark', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2026/03/calcutta-high-court-recognizes.html', title: 'Calcutta High Court Recognizes Graphical User Interfaces as Registrable Designs: Landmark Ruling Aligns India with Global Digital Design Protection Standards', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 12 March 2026', body: `The Calcutta High Court delivered a landmark judgment in NEC Corporation & Ors. vs Controller of Patents and Designs (2026:CHC-OS:69), definitively holding that Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) qualify as registrable "designs" under the Designs Act, 2000. The Court rejected the Controller's restrictive approach that had systematically denied GUI registrations on grounds of lack of permanence, physical embodiment, and failure to qualify as an "industrial process."
The case consolidated multiple statutory appeals filed by NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin, Abiomed Inc., and TVS Motor Company — all of whom had suffered repeated rejections of their GUI design applications despite judicial guidance favoring GUI registrability. The Court treated the appeals as raising a single question: whether a Graphical User Interface qualifies as a "design" under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000.
1. GUIs satisfy the definition of "design" under Section 2(d): GUIs constitute features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, or composition of lines or colours applied to articles (display devices) by an industrial process (electronic rendering). They appeal to and are judged solely by the eye during normal device use.
2. Permanence is not a statutory requirement: The word "permanent" does not appear in Section 2(d). The relevant test is whether the design appeals to the eye when the article is in normal use — and GUIs are visible whenever a device is in use.
3. Physical embodiment is not mandatory: Display screens, monitors, and touchscreens are articles of manufacture. GUIs are applied to these articles; the design need not itself be a physical object.
4. "Industrial process" covers electronic rendering: The phrase must be interpreted broadly to encompass modern manufacturing methods. Digital rendering of visual elements on display devices constitutes an industrial process under the Act.
5. Locarno Classification reflects legislative intent: India's adoption of Class 14-04 (Graphical User Interfaces and Icons) under the 2008 and 2021 Design Rules demonstrates Parliament's recognition that GUIs fall within the design protection regime.
This ruling brings India into alignment with the United States, European Union, Japan, and South Korea — all of which have long recognised GUI registrability. Technology, automotive, medical device, and consumer electronics companies may now file design applications for innovative GUI elements. The judgment's "updating construction" principle also provides a framework for future digital design challenges including AR/VR interfaces and AI-generated designs. The Court set aside the Controller's rejection orders and remanded all four applications for fresh examination.
` }, 'patent-revocation': { cat: 'Patents · Delhi HC · Revocation · Pharmaceutical', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2026/02/delhi-high-court-clarifies-patent.html', title: 'Delhi High Court Clarifies Patent Revocation Rights: Expired Patents Can Be Revoked, Section 107 Defence Does Not Bar Revocation Petition', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 26 February 2026', body: `The Delhi High Court Division Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim vs Macleods Pharmaceuticals (Linagliptin — Patent IN'243301) held that: (1) patent revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act remain maintainable even after the patent has expired by efflux of time; and (2) filing a Section 107 invalidity defence in an infringement suit does not preclude a separate revocation petition. The Court dismissed Boehringer's appeal and affirmed the Single Judge's order allowing Macleods' revocation petition to proceed.
In February 2022, Macleods Pharmaceuticals filed a revocation petition under Section 64 seeking to invalidate Boehringer's Indian Patent IN'243301 covering Linagliptin (a diabetes medication). Boehringer simultaneously initiated infringement proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Macleods raised invalidity as a defence under Section 107. On August 18, 2023, the patent expired by efflux of its 20-year term. Boehringer then sought dismissal of the revocation petition on two grounds: patent expiry; and that Macleods' Section 107 defence precluded a separate revocation petition.
The Court held that revocation under Section 64 operates retrospectively and ab initio — a revoked patent is treated as never having existed from the date of grant. Section 64 contains no textual limitation to subsisting patents. Where an infringement suit claiming damages for past infringement remains pending, the accused infringer retains a "person interested" status even after expiry. A successful revocation would eliminate Macleods' liability for past infringement entirely.
The Court held that Section 64 revocation and Section 107 invalidity defences are fundamentally distinct remedies. Revocation operates in rem — removing the patent from the Register and affecting all persons. Section 107 defence operates in personam — only binding the specific parties. Section 151 of the Patents Act expressly recognises this by requiring revocation orders to be entered in the Patent Register, whereas invalidity findings in suits are merely recorded in a supplemental record.
The Court also clarified that Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra only prohibits simultaneous pursuit of two Section 64 routes (petition + counter-claim) — it does not restrict a Section 64 petition alongside a Section 107 defence.
This decision confirms that patent challengers may pursue revocation even post-expiry where a live damages claim exists. It preserves accused infringers' ability to use both the Section 107 defence (for immediate protection) and a Section 64 petition (for public-benefit invalidation). Patentees cannot use patent expiry to render revocation proceedings moot when an infringement suit for past damages is pending. The judgment aligns with UK precedents such as Virgin Atlantic v. Zodiac Seats.
` }, 'madras-trademark': { cat: 'Trademarks · Madras HC · COVID · Abandonment', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2026/02/madras-high-court-holds-pandemic.html', title: 'Madras High Court Holds Pandemic-Related Filing Difficulties Cannot Result in Deemed Abandonment: Substantive Rights Prevail Over Procedural Formalities', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 26 February 2026', body: `The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's order deeming trademark application No. 4015733 for the mark "Modern Kitchens' Delite in Every Bite" abandoned. The Court held that an affidavit filed within the prescribed timeline but lacking signature and attestation due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions should be treated as validly filed — with subsequent rectification not constituting a fresh filing.
ACE Foods filed trademark application No. 4015733 in Class 35 on December 3, 2018. Modern Snacks filed an opposition on December 12, 2019. ACE Foods filed a counter-affidavit under Rule 46 on June 1, 2020 — within the prescribed timeline — but the document could not be signed or attested due to the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. An undertaking was filed to submit a properly executed version. In 2024, when proceedings resumed, ACE Foods filed a signed affidavit with a different signatory (as the original signatory had died). On July 4, 2025, the Registrar deemed the application abandoned on the ground that the signed affidavit filed in 2024 was beyond the limitation period under Rule 46(2).
1. Intent to prosecute: Filing the affidavit within the deadline — even without signature due to pandemic restrictions — demonstrated clear intent to comply. This is the crucial test for abandonment, not mere technical non-compliance.
2. No prejudice: Modern Snacks had filed a reply affidavit on July 31, 2020, demonstrating it had received and responded to the substance of ACE Foods' affidavit. No prejudice could be established from the absence of formal attestation.
3. Rectification, not fresh filing: The 2024 signed affidavit was merely a formal rectification curing a procedural defect — not a new filing. The original filing date of June 1, 2020 governs.
4. Narrow construction of abandonment: Deemed abandonment is a drastic consequence and must be applied narrowly — only where the applicant has genuinely failed to prosecute or lacks bona fide intent to proceed.
The Court set aside the Registrar's order, directed the affidavit to be treated as filed on June 1, 2020, and ordered the opposition to be heard on merits. This decision provides important guidance: in extraordinary circumstances, applicants should file whatever is possible by the deadline (even if incomplete) with an undertaking to cure defects — preserving the filing date and demonstrating intent to comply. Purely technical non-compliance in force majeure circumstances will not cause forfeiture of substantive trademark rights.
` }, 'designs-concept-note': { cat: 'Designs · India · DPIIT · Legislation', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2026/01/india-releases-comprehensive-concept-note-designs-act-2000.html', title: 'India Releases Comprehensive Concept Note on Proposed Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000: Paradigm Shift Toward Digital Innovation and International Integration', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 23 January 2026', body: `On January 23, 2026, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) released a comprehensive Concept Note proposing wide-ranging amendments to the Designs Act, 2000 — the most significant reform proposal since the Act's enactment. The Concept Note responds to India's rapidly growing design ecosystem, technological transformation, and the imperative of international integration.
The most transformative proposal extends design protection to virtual and digital designs — explicitly covering graphical user interfaces (GUIs), icons, animations, screen-based layouts, AR/VR interfaces, typefaces, and other non-physical designs. This requires amending the definitions of 'article' and 'design' to decouple eligibility from physical, tangible carriers. Protection would cover digital aesthetics satisfying core requirements of novelty and visual appeal, while continuing to exclude purely functional features. This ensures the Act remains technologically neutral and responsive to innovation in fintech, gaming, healthcare, e-commerce, and immersive digital services.
The existing 10-year term with a single 5-year renewal is proposed to be replaced by a staged "5+5+5" structure — three renewable five-year blocks totalling a maximum of fifteen years. Designs in fast-moving sectors (fashion, packaging, digital products) with shorter commercial lifespans can lapse earlier, reducing barriers to competition. Commercially valuable designs can continue to enjoy full protection. The average commercial lifespan of a design in 2025 was approximately 5.1 years (WIPO IP Indicators 2025) — supporting the rationale for staged renewal.
A full, unconditional 12-month grace period for design filings is proposed — replacing the current narrow six-month exhibition-based exception under Section 21. The expanded grace period accommodates disclosures through online product launches, investor presentations, pilot sales, and digital marketplaces, particularly benefiting MSMEs, startups, and first-time designers who frequently lose rights due to inadvertent pre-filing disclosures.
The deferment period for publication of registered designs is proposed to be extended to 30 months from the filing/priority date. Given average grant time of 135 days in 2025, this allows significant protection for commercially sensitive designs before public disclosure — particularly valuable for products with phased commercial launches.
Multiple design filings within the same class in a single application would reduce costs, paperwork, and administrative burden — particularly for products developed with design variants. Divisional applications are proposed to allow applicants to split filings where objections arise or multiple designs are claimed. Time relief and reinstatement provisions are proposed to restore rights lost due to non-compliance with procedural time limits, where failure was unintentional or despite due care — particularly benefiting MSMEs, startups, and foreign applicants.
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act is proposed to be amended to permit copyright protection for designs that are capable of registration but remain unregistered, capped at 15 years. This aims to harmonise the two regimes, prevent misuse of copyright to secure extended monopolies over design subject matter, and improve legal predictability — addressing the ambiguity that has long generated litigation, most recently addressed by the Supreme Court in Inox India v. Cryogas Equipment.
India's accession to the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs (Geneva Act 1999) is proposed — enabling Indian designers and businesses to secure design protection in multiple jurisdictions through a single international application, reducing costs and administrative burden, and enabling foreign businesses to designate India under an international application. Accession to the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT) — signed by India in 2024 — is proposed, requiring amendments to meet DLT's procedural simplification obligations, including reduced documentation requirements, the 12-month grace period, 30-month deferred publication, time relief, and reinstatement provisions.
DPIIT has invited comments and suggestions from stakeholders on the proposals to facilitate further deliberations and detailed development of the amendments, with submissions due by February 22, 2026. Aswal Associates is actively monitoring this consultation and has prepared a detailed submission on behalf of clients with pending and registered Indian designs.
These reforms represent a paradigm shift in how Indian law views design — from a peripheral protection for physical goods to a core component of innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth in the digital economy. If implemented effectively, they could significantly strengthen design protection for domestic creators and make India a more attractive jurisdiction for global design investment — advancing the vision of "Design in India, Design for the World."
` }, 'nepal-trademark-2025': { cat: 'Trademarks · Nepal · International · Compliance', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2025/12/nepal-issues-critical-compliance-deadlines-trademark-applications.html', title: 'Nepal Issues Critical Compliance Deadlines for Pending Trademark Applications Following September 2025 Civil Unrest', meta: 'Aswal Associates · December 2025', body: `On September 9, 2025, Nepal experienced widespread Gen Z-led civil unrest involving arson, vandalism, and looting — part of nationwide anti-corruption protests. The industrial property section of Nepal's Department of Industry (DoI) suffered significant destruction of physical trademark files and infrastructure. The incident has triggered a complete restructuring of Nepal's trademark administration.
August 19, 2025: DoI issued a public notice requiring registrants to submit proof of use for registered trademarks (90-day deadline for incomplete applications; 60-day deadline for proof of use for registered marks).
September 24, 2025: DoI suspended the August 19 notice due to the civil unrest — providing temporary relief to brand owners.
December 1, 2025: DoI issued a Supplementary Notice reestablishing procedural requirements for applicants affected by the loss of files. This marks the end of the temporary suspension period and the beginning of mandatory compliance.
Deadline 1 — Pending/Incomplete Applications: All applicants with pending trademark applications or incomplete documentation must resubmit their applications with all necessary documents within 90 days from the publication date of the notice — i.e., by February 28/March 1, 2026. Applications pending for more than seven years that are not resubmitted by this deadline will be automatically cancelled (suo moto) with no further notice.
Deadline 2 — Published Marks Awaiting Registration Certificates: For trademarks already published in the Official Gazette before December 1, 2025, and not subject to opposition, owners have six months — until May 31, 2026 — to apply for issuance of the registration certificate and complete remaining formalities. Failure results in cancellation.
Brand owners with Nepalese trademark interests should urgently: (1) audit their Nepal trademark portfolio to identify all pending applications and the status of formalities; (2) identify applications with incomplete documentation and prepare complete resubmission packages; (3) identify applications published but not yet certificated and initiate certificate collection; (4) retain all internal documentation including filing evidence, assignment deeds, procedural records, and proofs of use; and (5) engage local counsel for coordinated compliance action before the applicable deadlines.
While the December 1 notice does not expressly reiterate proof-of-use requirements from the earlier August notice, Nepalese trademark law continues to impose a one-year vulnerability window for non-use — making it advisable to maintain adequate use evidence on file.
Nepal's trademark administration, while relatively straightforward compared to major jurisdictions, has historically posed challenges for international brand owners. The September 2025 events and their aftermath present an urgent, time-critical compliance challenge. Aswal Associates has extensive experience managing Nepal trademark portfolios for Indian and international clients and is actively assisting clients in navigating these deadlines. Please contact us immediately if you have pending Nepal trademark matters.
` }, 'india-smell-trademark': { cat: 'Trademarks · India · Non-Conventional Marks', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2025/11/india-registers-first-olfactory-smell-trademark.html', title: 'India Registers Its First Olfactory (Smell) Trademark: A Historic Milestone in Non-Conventional Trademark Protection', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 21 November 2025', body: `On November 21, 2025, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) accepted India's first-ever olfactory (smell) trademark — a landmark moment in Indian IP law. The CGPDTM directed that Application No. 5860303 filed by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. for a "floral fragrance/smell reminiscent of roses as applied to tyres" in Class 12, be advertised in the Trade Marks Journal as an olfactory mark on a "proposed-to-be-used" basis.
The primary hurdle in registering any trademark is graphical representation — the requirement that a mark be capable of being represented on paper in a way that allows the public and competitors to know precisely what is protected. For visual marks this is simple; for sound marks, musical notation or spectrograms suffice. Smells, however, present a unique challenge: chemical formulas represent the substance, not the smell; verbal descriptions are too subjective; physical samples deteriorate. These barriers had historically defeated all attempts to register olfactory marks globally, resulting in only a handful of successful registrations worldwide.
Sumitomo's rose-scented tyre is not new to trademark protection globally. The same fragrance was registered as the first smell mark in the United Kingdom in 1996. In India, Sumitomo pursued a multi-layered evidentiary strategy: (1) Gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to define the molecular fingerprint of the rose fragrance; (2) Expert olfactory and fragrance specialist sworn statements attesting to the uniqueness and non-functional nature of the scent; (3) Evidence of fragrance stability throughout the product lifecycle; and (4) A pioneering seven-dimensional olfactory vector developed by scientists at the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Allahabad — mapping the rose scent along seven fundamental olfactory dimensions: floral, fruity, woody, nutty, pungent, sweet, and minty.
Because this was entirely uncharted territory in India, the CGPDTM appointed Mr. Pravin Anand, a senior IP practitioner, as amicus curiae. His detailed submissions bridged the gap between legal standards and sensory science, drawing on global jurisprudence from the EU, UK, and US, and his own scholarly work including the APAA article "Science, Art and Law Relating to Smell."
Graphical Representation — Section 2(1)(zb): The seven-dimensional olfactory vector was held to satisfy the graphical representation requirement — providing objectivity through measurable scent-component ratios, precision through standardized dimensional values, intelligibility, clarity, and durability. The CGPDTM expressly found the model echoed the Sieckmann criteria (ECJ 2002) while enabling India to chart its own path.
Distinctiveness — Section 9: The CGPDTM found that a rose scent applied to tyres is fundamentally arbitrary. Tyres typically emit a rubber smell; a rose fragrance is entirely unexpected and non-functional — it serves no performance purpose. The stark contrast between the typical rubber odour and rose-like fragrance makes the scent capable of distinguishing Sumitomo's products as a badge of commercial origin.
The EU continues to prohibit smell mark registration (EUIPO Guidelines: olfactory marks "not acceptable" under current technology). The US accepts scent marks for non-functional source identifiers but requires acquired distinctiveness. The UK accepts smell marks under the Sieckmann criteria. India now joins the progressive jurisdictions recognizing olfactory marks — with the added innovation of a scientifically validated graphical representation model that could serve as a model for future global practice.
Businesses pursuing sensory branding strategies in India should note that the success of Sumitomo's application required: (1) a robust scientific representation model; (2) expert olfactory testimony; (3) chemical composition evidence; (4) proof of fragrance stability; and (5) a clear showing that the scent is non-functional and capable of serving as a source identifier. The bar is high — but now demonstrably achievable in India. Aswal Associates has been advising clients on non-conventional trademark strategies and can assist with olfactory mark applications for the Indian Trade Marks Registry.
` }, 'mohan-lal-three-judge': { cat: 'Designs Act · Delhi HC · Three-Judge Bench', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2023/05/delhi-high-court-three-judges-bench-recognizes-infringement-passing-off.html', title: 'Delhi High Court Three-Judge Bench Recognizes Infringement and Passing Off Remedies for Registered Design Proprietors (Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint)', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 18 May 2023', body: `A three-judge bench of the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment affirming that holders of registered designs can file infringement suits against other registered proprietors, invoke common law passing off remedies even without explicit statutory provisions in the Designs Act, and pursue both remedies concurrently — though not in a single consolidated suit.
The Delhi High Court adjudicated three critical questions arising from Mohan Lal's suit as proprietor of Mourya Industries (and co-plaintiff Micolube India Ltd.) against Sona Paints & Hardware and related parties under the Designs Act, 2000.
Issue I — Infringement Suits Against Registered Proprietors: Whether a suit for infringement of a registered design is maintainable against another registered proprietor?
Issue II — Passing Off for Registered Design Holders: Whether the remedy of passing off is available to a holder of a registered design in the absence of express statutory provisions in the Designs Act?
Issue III — Composite Suits: Whether passing off actions can be combined with infringement actions under the Designs Act in a single suit?
Issue I — Infringement Suits: Maintainable. The Court held that Section 22 of the Designs Act uses the broad term "any person" without carving out an exception for registered proprietors. If Parliament had intended to exclude registered proprietors, it would have expressly stated so. Requiring the design holder to instead bring cancellation proceedings (under the Tobu Enterprises interpretation) imposes unnecessary procedural hurdles. The validity of the defendant's registration can be challenged as a defence in the infringement suit under Section 22(3).
Issue II — Passing Off: Available. The Court conclusively held that common law passing off remedies are available to protect registered designs, even though the Designs Act lacks an express saving provision like Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act. Common law remedies are not excluded by statute unless expressly stated. Designs can acquire distinctive character and goodwill through extensive commercial use. All essential elements of passing off (goodwill, misrepresentation, damage) can be proven in design disputes. Multiple prior decisions — Alert India v. Naveen Plastics (1997), Smithkline Beechem Plc v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1999), Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Ltd. (2011) — have recognized passing off in design disputes.
Issue III — Concurrent But Separate Suits. Infringement (statutory, strict liability) and passing off (common law, tort-based) are different causes of action and should be treated as separate suits — but courts may choose to hear them simultaneously for procedural efficiency.
This three-judge bench decision was subsequently considered — and partially overruled — by the five-judge bench in Carlsberg Breweries v. Som Distilleries (December 2018), which maintained the holdings on infringement maintainability and passing off availability, but overruled the prohibition on composite suits. Together, the two decisions establish that design proprietors can now: file infringement suits against other registered proprietors; invoke passing off in the same or concurrent proceedings; and — following Carlsberg — combine both causes of action in a single composite suit.
` }, 'carlsberg-five-judge': { cat: 'Designs Act · Delhi HC · Five-Judge Bench · Landmark', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2018/12/delhi-high-court-five-judge-bench-overrules-mohan-lal.html', title: 'Delhi High Court Five-Judge Bench Overrules Mohan Lal and Upholds Maintainability of Composite Suits for Design Infringement and Passing Off (Carlsberg Breweries v. Som Distilleries)', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 14 December 2018', body: `A five-judge bench of the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment overruling the earlier three-judge bench decision in Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint & Hardwares, holding that plaintiffs can maintain composite suits combining design infringement and passing off claims against the same defendant — where both causes of action arise from the same transaction and involve common questions of fact and law.
Carlsberg Breweries filed suit claiming infringement of its registered bottle design and passing off of its trade dress and the "Carlsberg" mark's overall get-up. The defendant objected that under the Mohan Lal judgment the two claims could not be combined in one suit. The fundamental question of maintainability was referred to a special five-judge bench for authoritative determination.
Whether in one composite suit, there can be joinder of: (i) infringement by the defendant of a registered design under the Designs Act, 2000; and (ii) passing off by the defendant of its goods as those of the plaintiff?
Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits plaintiffs to unite several causes of action against the same defendant to save cost, time, and effort — provided they involve common questions of law and fact.
1. Erroneous Application of Precedents by Mohan Lal: The bench held that Mohan Lal erroneously applied the Dabur India Limited v. K.R. Industries and M/s. Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi precedents. Both were primarily concerned with territorial jurisdiction issues, not the maintainability of composite suits per se. Neither held that composite suits are impermissible where common questions of law and fact arise from the same transaction.
2. Common Questions of Law and Fact: Relying on Prem Lata Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, the Court derived the principle that where the substantial evidence of two causes of action would be common, there can be joinder under Order II Rule 3 CPC. The Court found that design infringement and passing off arising from the same infringing transaction share common evidence: the plaintiff's registered design and its features; the defendant's allegedly infringing design; comparison between the two; evidence of sales and use in commerce; and evidence of market confusion and consumer perception.
3. Same Transaction Test: Applying M/s. Jay Industries v. M/s. Nakson Industries (which allowed joinder of trademark and copyright claims arising from the same sale transaction), the Court held that where design infringement and passing off arise from the same transaction of sale, they involve common questions and evidence — permitting joinder under Order II Rule 3.
Composite suits combining design infringement and passing off claims are maintainable when both causes of action arise from the same transaction and involve common questions of law and fact. Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint & Hardwares is overruled to the extent it held that composite suits are not maintainable. Order II Rule 3 CPC permits joinder of design infringement and passing off causes of action when they satisfy the requirements of common questions and same transaction.
As a five-judge bench decision, this judgment carries significant precedential weight for Delhi High Court. It promotes judicial efficiency, reduces litigation costs, and recognizes commercial reality. Design proprietors should now pursue comprehensive protection strategies combining statutory and common law remedies in a single proceeding — where the same infringing conduct gives rise to both claims. The holdings in Mohan Lal regarding maintainability of design infringement suits against registered proprietors and availability of passing off remedies remain valid — only the prohibition on composite suits was overruled.
The five-judge bench clarified that its ruling does not completely overturn all aspects of Mohan Lal. The holdings regarding: (1) maintainability of design infringement suits against other registered proprietors; and (2) availability of passing off remedies for registered design holders — remain valid and are in fact confirmed. Only the prohibition on combining these claims in a single composite suit was overruled by Carlsberg.
` }, 'patent-revocation': { cat: 'Patents · Delhi High Court', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2026/02/delhi-high-court-clarifies-patent.html', title: 'Delhi High Court Clarifies Patent Revocation Rights: Expired Patents Can Be Revoked, Section 107 Defence Does Not Bar Revocation Petition', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 26 February 2026', body: `The Delhi High Court Division Bench held that patent revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act remain maintainable even after patent expiry, and that filing a Section 107 invalidity defence in an infringement suit does not preclude a separate revocation petition.
In February 2022, Macleods Pharmaceuticals filed a revocation petition seeking to invalidate Boehringer Ingelheim's Indian Patent IN'243301 covering Linagliptin (a diabetes medication). Two days later, Boehringer initiated infringement proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Macleods raised a Section 107 invalidity defence in the HP suit. On August 18, 2023, Patent IN'243301 expired by efflux of time. Boehringer then applied to dismiss the revocation petition.
Issue 1: Can a revocation petition survive after patent expiry? Yes. Patent expiry renders the patent unenforceable prospectively but does not erase its legal existence. Section 2(m) defines "patent" broadly without restricting it to in-force patents. Where a damages claim for past infringement remains pending, Macleods retains a real legal interest in establishing invalidity ab initio.
Issue 2: Does a Section 107 defence bar a Section 64 petition? No. Section 64 revocation operates in rem — removes the patent from the Register with retrospective effect, benefits the entire public. Section 107 defence operates in personam — results only in dismissal of that specific suit, patent remains on the Register. Section 151 of the Patents Act itself recognizes this distinction.
The Court clarified that Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra [(2014) 15 SCC 360] only prohibits pursuing both a standalone Section 64 petition and a Section 64 counter-claim simultaneously — it does not address or restrict a Section 107 defence alongside a Section 64 petition.
Boehringer's appeal dismissed. Macleods' revocation petition to proceed. This judgment confirms that patent challengers retain revocation rights even post-expiry (where damages claims are pending), strongly affirms that revocation operates ab initio, and preserves the ability to pursue Section 107 and Section 64 remedies simultaneously.
` }, 'vertex-date-grant': { cat: 'Patents · Delhi High Court · Procedural', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2025/04/delhi-high-court-interprets-date-of-grant.html', title: 'Delhi High Court Interprets "Date of Grant" in Patent Law: When Controller Signs Order, Patent Is Granted', meta: 'Aswal Associates · April 2025', body: `The Delhi High Court clarified that the decisive point in time for patent grant is when the Controller signs the order under Section 15 — not when the order is uploaded on the IPO website, when the certificate is generated, or when the patent is entered in the register under Section 43.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals filed patent application (202017044455) for cystic fibrosis treatment. The Controller signed the order granting the patent on November 28, 2023. However, due to system limitations, the order was uploaded on the IPO website at approximately 5:25 pm on the same day. At 5:18 pm — seven minutes before upload — Mr. Velagala Suresh filed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1).
The Controller issued notice on December 8, 2023, treating the opposition as valid. Vertex filed a miscellaneous petition seeking dismissal, which the Controller rejected on April 5, 2024, holding the opposition valid and maintainable.
Date of Grant vs. Ministerial Acts: The Court emphasized that the "date of order" of a patent grant is the date on which the Controller passes (signs) the order, not the date of its upload or certificate generation. These subsequent acts are purely ministerial and do not affect the legal status of the grant.
Functus Officio: Once the order granting the patent was signed, the Controller became functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain any pre-grant opposition or issue further notices.
Systemic Delays: The Court noted that delays in uploading or generating certificates are attributable to systemic issues within the IPO and not to any fault of the patentee, who should not suffer adverse consequences due to such delays.
The Court quashed the impugned notice and the Controller's order. The pre-grant opposition was held to be not maintainable as it was filed after the patent had already been granted by the Controller's signature.
This ruling provides crucial clarity on the precise moment of patent grant, protecting patentees from oppositions filed during administrative processing delays. It reinforces that statutory rights vest upon the Controller's decision, not subsequent administrative formalities.
` }, 'synertec-restoration': { cat: 'Patents · Delhi High Court · Restoration', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2025/12/delhi-high-court-grants-patent-application-restoration.html', title: 'Delhi High Court Grants Patent Application Restoration: Agent Error Does Not Defeat Patent Rights', meta: 'Aswal Associates · December 2025', body: `The Delhi High Court restored a patent application that was deemed abandoned due to failure to file Form 18 (Request for Examination) within the prescribed timeline. The Court held that the delay was caused by patent agent error, not intentional abandonment, and that substantive rights cannot be defeated by procedural lapses where the intent to prosecute was clear.
Synertec's patent application faced deemed abandonment after its patent agent failed to file Form 18 within the statutory deadline. The applicant sought restoration under Section 60 of the Patents Act, arguing that the delay was unintentional and caused by professional oversight rather than any desire to abandon the application.
Intent to Prosecute: The Court found that the applicant had consistently demonstrated intention to pursue the patent, investing significant resources in prosecution up to that point. The failure to file Form 18 was an isolated oversight by the patent agent.
Agent vs. Applicant Distinction: The Court distinguished between acts of the applicant and acts of their agent. While applicants are generally bound by their agents' actions, restoration provisions exist precisely to remedy such procedural lapses where no abandonment was intended.
Substantive vs. Procedural Rights: The Court emphasized that patent rights are substantive property rights. Procedural requirements like Form 18 filing are meant to advance administrative efficiency, not to extinguish valid inventions due to technical lapses.
Precedent: The Court relied on established principles that restoration provisions should be liberally construed to prevent forfeiture of rights where there is no evidence of deliberate abandonment.
The Court allowed the restoration petition, setting aside the deemed abandonment. The applicant was permitted to file Form 18 with appropriate condonation of delay, subject to payment of prescribed fees.
This ruling provides relief to patent applicants who face abandonment due to agent errors or oversight. It reinforces that the Indian patent system prioritizes substantive justice over rigid procedural compliance, particularly where genuine intent to prosecute is established.
` }, 'dong-yang': { cat: 'Patents · Delhi High Court · Inventive Step', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2025/07/delhi-high-court-inventive-step-must-be-evidence-based.html', title: 'Delhi High Court: Inventive Step Must Be Evidence-Based, Not Assumption-Driven (Dong Yang PC)', meta: 'Aswal Associates · July 2025', body: `The Delhi High Court overturned the Controller's rejection of a patent for a Vertical Rotary Parking System, holding that conclusions on inventive step must be evidence-based rather than driven by assumptions or vague references to "common general knowledge."
Dong Yang PC, Inc., a Korean manufacturer, filed Indian Patent Application 2554/DEL/2013 for a "Vertical Rotary Parking System" designed to optimize urban parking through vertical storage in a rotating structure. Parkerbot India filed pre-grant opposition citing prior art documents D1-D4. Later, additional prior art D5 (KR200326138Y1) — an earlier Korean patent owned by Dong Yang itself — was introduced.
The Controller rejected the application for lack of inventive step over D5, refusing to allow voluntary amendments that distinguished the invention from D5. The Controller relied on "common general knowledge" to assert that the modification was obvious without citing specific evidence.
1. Inventive Step Over Own Prior Art: The Court found the Controller failed to provide evidence or authoritative sources supporting the claim of obviousness. The decade-long gap between D5 (2003) and the present application (2013) supported non-obviousness.
2. Evidence-Based Assessment: The Court emphasized that assertions of "obviousness" must be substantiated with concrete reasoning or evidence. Generalized references to "common general knowledge" without specific sources are insufficient to deny inventive step.
3. Right to Amend: The Court held that when previously undisclosed prior art comes to light during examination, applicants have the right to amend specifications under Section 59 to distinguish the new prior art, and such amendments must be considered on merits.
The invention replaced female portions of the suspension chain (as in D5) with male portions, resulting in smoother motion, reduced friction, fewer contact points, lower noise levels, and enhanced safety. The Court found these improvements were not obvious workshop modifications.
The appeal was allowed, the Controller's rejection set aside, and the case remanded for de novo consideration with directions that:
This judgment reinforces that patent examination must be grounded in evidence rather than speculation. It protects applicants from rejection based on unsupported assertions of obviousness and affirms the importance of amendment rights during prosecution.
` }, 'madras-trademark': { cat: 'Trademarks · Madras High Court', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2026/02/madras-high-court-holds-pandemic.html', title: 'Madras High Court: Pandemic-Related Filing Difficulties Cannot Result in Deemed Abandonment', meta: 'Aswal Associates · February 2026', body: `The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's order deeming a trademark application abandoned. The Court held that an affidavit filed within the prescribed timeline but lacking signature due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions should be treated as validly filed.
ACE Foods filed trademark application No. 4015733 in Class 35 on December 3, 2018, for the mark "Modern Kitchens' Delite in Every Bite", claiming use since 1984. Modern Snacks filed Opposition No. 1019941 in December 2019. ACE Foods filed a counter-affidavit on June 1, 2020 within the prescribed timeline — but due to COVID-19 lockdown it could not be signed or attested. ACE Foods submitted an undertaking to file a properly executed version once restrictions lifted. In 2024, ACE Foods revived the matter with a signed affidavit (new signatory, the original having passed away). The Registrar deemed the application abandoned on July 4, 2025.
Intent demonstrated: Filing on June 1, 2020 within the deadline showed clear intent to prosecute despite extraordinary circumstances.
No prejudice to opponent: Modern Snacks filed its reply affidavit on July 31, 2020 — demonstrating it received and responded to the substance of ACE Foods' affidavit. No prejudice from the absent signature.
Rectification, not fresh filing: The 2024 affidavit was merely a formal rectification — not a new filing introducing different evidence.
Narrow construction of abandonment: Deemed abandonment provisions result in drastic loss of rights and must be construed narrowly, applied only where there is genuine failure to prosecute.
Registrar's order set aside. Affidavit treated as filed June 1, 2020. Opposition to be heard on merits.
` }, 'china-patent-2026': { cat: 'Patents · China · AI', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2025/12/china-unveils-major-amendments-to.html', title: 'China Unveils Major Amendments to Patent Examination Guidelines: AI, Biotechnology, and Dual Filings — Effective January 1, 2026', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 26 December 2025', body: `CNIPA implemented substantially revised Patent Examination Guidelines effective January 1, 2026 — the most comprehensive update to China's patent examination framework in recent years.
Only genuine natural-person inventors may be listed. Complete identification (ID card/passport numbers) required at filing. Corporate entities cannot be inventors. Divisional applications must explicitly declare priority claims at filing or face deemed non-claim of priority. Biotech applications with sequence listings in prescribed electronic format (WIPO ST.26) will not count those pages toward fee calculation.
Inventive step assessment based solely on claims. Specification advantages not recited in claims will not be considered. Features that do not contribute to solving the technical problem will be disregarded — preventing artificial inventiveness through insignificant claim additions.
Res judicata prohibition expanded to "same or substantially the same reasons and evidence" — preventing serial invalidation challenges that merely repackage prior arguments. Requests filed under false names or forged authorization will be refused.
For AI model construction/training: specifications must describe architecture, training data, parameters, and performance evaluation. For AI applications: must demonstrate concrete technical application specific to the field, not merely abstract algorithm. These requirements prevent overbroad AI patent claims.
Claims to simple bitstreams without structural/functional limitations fall under "rules and methods of intellectual activity" — not patent-eligible. Claims to methods of storing/transmitting bitstreams that include the underlying encoding step may be patentable.
` }, 'maldives-trademark': { cat: 'Trademarks · International · Maldives', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2025/12/maldives-enacts-landmark-trademark-act.html', title: 'Maldives Enacts Landmark Trademark Act 2025: First Comprehensive Statutory Framework Replacing Cautionary Notice System', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 3 December 2025', body: `On November 11, 2025, the Republic of Maldives enacted the Trademark Act (Law No. 19/2025) — establishing the country's first comprehensive statutory trademark protection framework. The Act comes into force November 11, 2026 (twelve months after enactment), providing a transition period for stakeholders.
The Act operates alongside the Maldives Intellectual Property Office Act 2025 (Law No. 12/2025), which establishes a dedicated IP Office taking effect January 1, 2026. The staggered commencement (IP Office: Jan 2026; Trademark Act: Nov 2026) provides a ten-month period for the Office to operationalize before substantive trademark provisions begin.
The Act introduces formal examination procedures, structured opposition mechanisms, protection for well-known marks, and comprehensive civil and criminal remedies for infringement — all aligned with international IP standards.
Brand owners who previously relied on cautionary notices in the Maldives should prepare to file formal trademark applications during the transition period. Aswal Associates has extensive experience in Maldives IP matters and can advise on transition strategy, including priority rights for existing cautionary notice holders, ahead of the November 2026 commencement date.
` }, 'trademark-monopoly': { cat: 'Trademarks · Delhi High Court', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2025/11/delhi-high-court-holds-that-trademark.html', title: 'Delhi High Court: Trademark Proprietor Cannot Claim Monopoly Over Entire Class of Goods (PRO-EASE vs PRUEASE)', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 29 November 2025', body: `Trademark protection extends only to specific goods for which the mark is registered and used. A proprietor cannot claim exclusivity over all goods in a class simply because of a similar mark registered elsewhere in that class.
The Appellant adopted "PRO-EASE" in 2012 for sanitary napkins, pads, and feminine hygiene products (Class 5). The Respondents adopted "PRUEASE" in 2017 for a pharmaceutical preparation containing Prucalopride for constipation relief (also Class 5). The Appellant sought an interim injunction claiming deceptive similarity.
No Blanket Class Monopoly: Class 5 registration does not grant absolute rights over all pharmaceutical and health products in that class. Rights extend only to goods actually used. This prevents trademark warehousing.
No Likelihood of Confusion: Sanitary napkins and constipation relief medication move through entirely different trade channels, serve different consumers, and serve entirely different purposes.
Bona Fide Adoption: "PRU" derived from the active ingredient Prucalopride — a recognized pharmaceutical branding practice.
Estoppel: The Appellant had previously stated before the Registry that sanitary napkins, pharmaceutical goods, and ayurvedic medicines are distinct and concurrent use would not cause confusion. The Court held the Appellant could not take a contradictory litigation position.
No prima facie case established. Balance of convenience favoured the Respondents (continuous use since 2017 — seven years before the suit). No irreparable harm — damages would be adequate remedy.
Valuable precedent for disputes involving similar marks used for different goods within the same class — particularly in pharmaceutical and health products sectors. Reinforces that trademark law prevents consumer confusion, not grants unjustified monopolies.
` }, 'designs-supreme-court': { cat: 'Designs Act · Copyright · Supreme Court', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2025/11/supreme-court-formulates-two-pronged.html', title: 'Supreme Court Formulates Two-Pronged Test to Determine Eligibility for Protection Under Designs Act (Inox vs Cryogas)', meta: 'Aswal Associates · November 2025', body: `The Supreme Court of India developed a comprehensive two-pronged test to resolve complexities under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act — clarifying when copyright in engineering drawings is extinguished by their industrial application as designs.
The dispute concerned alleged infringement of engineering drawings and technical literary works related to Cryogenic Storage Tanks and LNG Semi-trailers. Inox India filed suit claiming copyright in its proprietary engineering drawings and written technical descriptions. The Appellants (Cryogas and LNG Express) argued the suit was barred under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, as Inox's drawings were capable of registration under the Designs Act — and given Inox's ₹122 crore revenue, more than fifty articles were clearly produced industrially.
Prong 1 — Capability of Registration: Is the work capable of being registered as a design? This requires examining whether the work constitutes "features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article" — visual features not purely functional.
Prong 2 — Industrial Application: Has the work been applied industrially (i.e., to more than fifty articles produced by industrial process)? If both conditions are satisfied, Section 15(2) extinguishes copyright protection.
This test provides crucial clarity for engineering and industrial design cases, where the boundary between copyright (in drawings as artistic works) and design rights (in the manufactured article) has long been contested. Purely artistic works retain copyright regardless of industrial application. Engineering drawings that meet both prongs lose copyright protection and must be protected, if at all, through the Designs Act.
` }, 'patent-amendment-2024': { cat: 'Patents · India · Amendment Rules 2024', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2024/03/salient-features-of-patent-amendment.html', title: 'Salient Features of Patent Amendment Rules 2024', meta: 'Aswal Associates · March 2024', body: `The Government of India notified the Patent Amendment Rules 2024 in March 2024, introducing significant changes to the Patent Rules 2003 — aimed at streamlining prosecution, improving transparency, and aligning Indian patent practice with international standards.
Form 1 (Application for Grant of Patent) now requires: gender and age of the Applicant and inventors, as well as email and phone number of the Applicant. For natural persons, age is mandatory at the time of filing. This aligns India with global trends toward comprehensive inventor disclosure and enables more efficient communication during examination.
Revised timelines for filing of Requests for Examination (RFE) and related procedural steps — aimed at reducing pendency at the Indian Patent Office. The amendments incentivize earlier examination requests and are designed to reduce the significant backlog of pending applications.
Important amendments affect PCT national phase filing procedures in India, including updated documentation requirements and timelines. Applicants with pending PCT applications should review their portfolios for compliance when entering the Indian national phase after the notification date.
The Rules clarify provisions relating to divisional applications — particularly the grounds on which divisionals may be filed and the relationship between parent and divisional applications during prosecution.
The 2024 amendments represent a meaningful step toward modernizing the Indian patent system. Enhanced inventor disclosure improves transparency. The examination timeline reforms, if implemented effectively, should reduce India's significant patent pendency. Aswal Associates has updated internal procedures for all filings after the notification date.
` }, 'makemytrip-booking': { cat: 'Trademarks · Delhi HC · Google Ads', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2022/05/use-of-registered-marks-on-google-ads.html', title: 'Use of Registered Marks on the Google Ads Program as Keywords Amounts to Trademark Infringement and Constitutes Passing-Off: Delhi High Court', meta: 'Aswal Associates · 17 May 2022', body: `In its order dated 27 April 2022, Justice Pratibha M. Singh of the Delhi High Court granted an injunction in favour of MakeMyTrip (MMT) — restraining Booking.com and Google from using the mark 'MakeMyTrip' as a keyword on the Google Ads Program within India.
MMT filed suit seeking protection of its registered trademarks 'MakeMyTrip' and variants, which Booking.com was bidding on as Google Ads keywords. When users searched for 'MakeMyTrip', the first advertisement displayed was often Booking.com — a direct competitor of MMT.
Booking.com relied on the European Commission judgment in Case AT.40428-GUESS (December 2018), argued the words 'make', 'my', 'trip' are generic and descriptive, and contended that restriction would be contrary to competition law.
The Court distinguished the GUESS judgment: that case concerned intra-brand competition — authorised distributors contractually prevented from using their supplier's own mark. The present case involved a direct competitor using a rival's mark. An entirely different factual matrix.
The Court held that Booking.com's use of MMT's registered mark on Google Ads amounts to trademark infringement and is detrimental to MMT's monetary interest. Competitors encashing upon the reputation of MMT's mark for their own monetary advantage was impermissible.
Booking.com and Google restrained from using 'MakeMyTrip' (with or without spaces, in conjunction) as a keyword on the Google Ads Program. The Court expressly limited the injunction to the territory of India given global repercussions. One week to comply.
One of India's most significant rulings on keyword advertising and trademark law. Establishes that a competitor bidding on a rival's registered trademark as a Google Ads keyword — causing the competitor's ad to appear ahead of the trademark owner's results — constitutes both infringement and passing off under Indian law. Brand owners should urgently audit their competitive keyword exposure in India.
` }, 'myanmar-trademark': { cat: 'Trademarks · Myanmar · International', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2019/11/trademark-registation-in-myanmar.html', title: 'Trademark Registration in Myanmar: New Trademark Law 2019 & Transition to Modern IPO Filing', meta: 'Adv. Gaytri Negi, Aswal Associates · November 2019', body: `The Parliament of Myanmar passed the Myanmar Trademark Law on January 30, 2019 — replacing the existing practice of registration of trademarks by Deeds of Trademark Ownership Declaration. A new Intellectual Property Office (IPO) of Myanmar was established under the Ministry of Commerce to administer the new modern trademark system.
The IPO of Myanmar commenced a soft-opening period from January 2020 for existing trademark registrations to be re-filed within six months on a first-to-file principle. Fresh trademark applications could only be filed after the re-filing period ended (tentatively July 1, 2020). New applications could still be filed under the old deed system before December 2019.
Indian companies operating in Myanmar or planning market entry should have re-filed their trademark applications with the new IPO during the transition soft-opening window. The new system provides significantly more robust protection and aligns Myanmar with ASEAN IP harmonization goals. Aswal Associates has been handling Myanmar trademark matters for Indian clients and can advise on current status under the new regime.
` }, 'madrid-india': { cat: 'Trademarks · Madrid Protocol · India', url: 'https://aswal.blogspot.com/2019/09/', title: 'Advantage of Madrid Filing in India: Benefits & Drawbacks After the 2017 Rule Amendments', meta: 'Aswal Associates · September 2019', body: `India became a member of the Madrid Protocol on July 8, 2013. The initial advantages of the Madrid system for Indian applicants (and for those designating India) were substantial compared to filing conventional or ordinary applications.
Initially: no limitation on the number of goods/services in the description for Madrid filings (non-Madrid applicants paid per character beyond 500); no mandatory association fee for Madrid filers (others paid association fees per prior application); savings in attorney fees; and centralised portfolio management through WIPO.
When deciding between Madrid and direct national filing in India, practitioners should consider: (1) Number of target jurisdictions — Madrid becomes more cost-effective as designated countries increase; (2) Complexity of goods/services description — post-2017 the differential has reduced; (3) Home jurisdiction — whether the applicant's national office is a Madrid member and the strength of their home base registration; (4) Risk tolerance — provisional refusals and their notification timelines; (5) Post-registration flexibility — central attack risk for Madrid registrations.
Aswal Associates advises clients on optimal filing strategy — including India as home office or designated country under the Madrid system — based on their portfolio, target markets, and budget.
` } }; function openModal(key) { const art = articles[key]; if (!art) return; const origLink = art.url ? `View original post on aswal.blogspot.com ↗` : ''; document.getElementById('modal-body').innerHTML = `