India: Trademark

Subscribe
Intellectual property law and copyright law thought leadership, articles, podcasts, videos and webinars from expert sources across the legal world. Explore insights covering topics such as licensing and syndication, patent law, trade secrets and trademark law.
Article
Trade Mark Protection In Digital Advertising In India - Bidding On A Rival's Brand: Delhi High Court's Ruling In Hindware Ltd. v Grohe India Pvt. Ltd.
For years, businesses have watched competitors surface on the search results page the instant a customer types their brand name. The technique is simple: buy the rival’s brand as a paid-search keyword, and your sponsored link appears alongside, or above, the results the customer was actually looking for. In Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. and the connected matter against Omkara Infoweb, the Delhi High Court confronted the practice directly, and held that selling a registered trademark as an advertising keyword is itself an infringing use in advertising. Just as importantly, it held that the advertising platform cannot run the keyword auction, and keep the revenue, and then disclaim responsibility as a mere intermediary.
India IP
SR
S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
Article
Registered, Then Cancelled: What The Delhi High Court’s Heritage Artifacts Ruling Means For Descriptive And Composite Trademarks In India
A trademark registration is meant to bring certainty. Yet in The Heritage Artifacts v. Registrar of Trade Marks, a mark that had been examined, advertised and registered was later cancelled by the very office that had granted it, on the ground that it was descriptive. The Delhi High Court set that cancellation aside. The decision speaks to two audiences at once: businesses choosing a brand that sits close to the descriptive line, and owners who find a granted registration suddenly under threat. It restates two settled principles, that the Registry must give cogent reasons before undoing its own grant, and that a composite mark must be read as a whole rather than pulled apart word by word.
India IP
SR
S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
Article
India’s Designs Office Switches To Email-Only Examination Reports From 2 October 2026
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has issued a public notice moving the communication of First Examination Reports (FERs) in design applications to email. With effect from 2 October 2026, design FERs will ordinarily be sent only to the email address the applicant has provided in Form-1, under the “Address for Service in India” particulars, and physical dispatch by post will ordinarily stop. The office has framed the change as part of paperless administration and the Digital India initiative.
India IP
SR
S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
Article
Intellectual Property Rights
The Registrar of Copyrights rejected an application filed by Dr. Stephen L. Thaler for registration of the work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, in which DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) was identified as the author. While the Registrar accepted that the AI-generated artwork satisfied the limited threshold of originality under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, it held that DABUS could not be recognised as the statutory author under Section 2(d)(vi).
India IP
KS
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article
India: Jan Vishwas And Intellectual Property Compliance – The Changing Landscape Of IP Penalties
India’s intellectual property (“IP”) framework has shifted towards decriminalisation and proportionate enforcement through the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (“Jan Vishwas Act 2023”). The reforms, effective from 1 August 2024, amended several provisions of India’s principal IP statutes, including the Patents Act, 1970, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI Act”).
India IP
KS
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article
When The Designer Is A Machine: Authorship, Novelty, And Ownership In AI-Generated Industrial Designs
When a generative tool can produce a product's shape, packaging, or interface in seconds, the older assumptions behind design law start to strain. This piece asks who counts as the author or applicant when a human prompt and a machine's output are combined, what that combination does to novelty searches and disclosure risk, how ownership is actually allocated in AI platform contracts, and why a design registration is refused, or granted, in ways that copyright and patent protection are not.
India IP
Ka
Khurana and Khurana
Article
The Situs: The Ever-expanding Territorial Jurisdiction Of Internet Infringements
The Delhi High Court's recent ruling in Kohinoor Seed Fields has dramatically expanded territorial jurisdiction for online intellectual property disputes, holding that mere website accessibility is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. This decision conflicts with earlier precedents requiring purposeful targeting of customers, creating uncertainty about where IP infringement cases can be filed in India's internet era.
India IP
LS
Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan
Article
Bombay High Court Restrains Hamon Cooling Systems From Using The ‘HAMON’ Mark In John Cockerill Hamon SA’s Favour
The Bombay High Court has restrained Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited (“Defendant No. 1”) from using the mark HAMON, holding that John Cockerill Hamon SA (the “Plaintiff”) had made out a strong prima facie case that it is the proprietor of the HAMON trade marks in India, and that Defendant No. 1’s use of the marks — traceable to a now-expired “Brand Usage Right” granted following a cross-border insolvency-driven transfer of the Hamon group’s global IP portfolio — amounted to infringement and passing off. The Order was passed by Justice Arif S. Doctor on 6th July 2026, allowing the Plaintiff’s Interim Application seeking to restrain Defendant No. 1 from using “HAMON COOLING” and “HCS HAMON COOLING” as trade marks and as part of its corporate name.
India IP
SR
S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
Article
Vaporub vs. Vaporin: When A Giant's Grip On VAPO Meets Its Match
Can a market giant monopolise a descriptive prefix simply because it built a powerful brand around it? The Madras High Court says no. By a common order dated January 6, 2026, the Court dismissed three Original Petitions filed by The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”), one of the world’s largest consumer goods conglomerates, seeking to cancel the trade mark registrations of an Indian enterprise, IPI India Private Limited (“IPI India”). The Hon’ble Court, presided over by Justice N. Senthilkumar, ruled that the marks ‘VAPORIN,’ ‘VAPORIN COLD RUB,’ and ‘Vapor In, Stress Out.
India IP
SR
S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
Article
The India–UK CETA: A Next-Generation Economic Corridor – The IP Framework Shaping A New Era Of Bilateral Trade
On 15 July 2026, the India–United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) moves from negotiated text to commercial reality, opening a new phase in one of the most significant economic partnerships between two major economies. Entering into force alongside the Double Contribution Convention (DCC), the agreement converts the ambition of the 2021 Enhanced Trade Partnership and the India–UK Roadmap 2030 into what the Government of India describes as a “next generation economic corridor”
India IP
SR
S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
Article
Intellectual Property Newsletter | July 2026
The global IP ecosystem is experiencing record-high filings and AI-driven innovation, with pivotal rulings addressing copyright protection for AI training, trademark enforcement across digital platforms, and patent disputes involving standard-essential technologies. From India's first substantive finding on AI training and fair use to landmark settlements in U.S. copyright litigation, courts worldwide are shaping how intellectual property law adapts to emerging technologies and evolving regulatory prioritie
India IP
DL
Dentons Link Legal
Article
Can A Search Engine Sell Your Trademark? Delhi High Court Rules On Keyword Advertising And Platform Liability
The intersection of trademark law and digital advertising has long been a contested frontier. One of its most persistent flashpoints concerns the practice of keyword advertising, where a business pays a search engine to display its advertisement when a user searches for a competitor’s brand name. In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, in Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., has provided what is, to date, India’s most definitive judicial answer to the question: does selling a registered trademark as a search keyword amount to trademark infringement, and can the search engine itself be held liable?
India IP
SR
S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates
See more

Latest Videos

See more