Author: Dr. Kalyan Kankanala

Dr. Kalyan Kankanala is a practicing intellectual property (IP) attorney and author. He is a senior partner at BananaIP Counsels, a well-known IP firm based in Bangalore, India. His writings cover a range of topics relating to IP law, business, and policy, and he has authored several books and articles in the field. He has been contributing to this blog since 2007. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent those of BananaIP Counsels or its members.

IndiaMart, PUMA, Drop-Downs, and Intermediary Liability

A man carrying a box walks on a running track that leads into a web browser window, symbolizing entry into an online marketplace.

In a trademark infringement dispute between IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd. (“IndiaMART”) and PUMA SE (“PUMA”), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a prior injunction restraining IndiaMART from offering the PUMA trademark as an option in its seller registration drop-down menu. The Court permitted IndiaMART to continue offering trademark-based menu items and search terms, subject to obligations regarding takedown of infringing listings.

All May Use “One for All” — But None May Own It

A digitally illustrated banner features the Three Musketeers in the center, wearing blue tunics with white crosses, brown gloves, and wide-brimmed hats, each holding a rapier. On the left side of the image, the phrase “ONE FOR ALL” appears in a playful white font, while “ALL FOR ONE” is displayed in matching style on the right. The background is a dark muted green, creating contrast that highlights both the figures and the text

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited (“Oswaal Books”) challenging the refusal of their trademark application for the phrase “ONE FOR ALL.” The Court upheld the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision, and came to the conclusion that the applied mark was devoid of any inherent or acquired distinctiveness.

Under Armour Vs. Aero Armour: Initial Interest Confusion and Trademark Infringement

Logos of Under Armour and Aero Armour beside colorful T-shirts on hangers.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Under Armour Inc. against Indian apparel entity Anish Agarwal & Anr., restraining the use of the trademarks ‘AERO ARMOUR’ and ‘ARMR’ during the pendency of the suit. The Court found that the respondents’ marks bore deceptive similarity to Under Armour’s registered word mark ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, and that their adoption for similar goods was prima facie infringing and not bona fide. The Court came to its conclusion of trademark infringement based on initial interest confusion among consumers, and by applying the dominant part rule.

When Dye Becomes Decisive: Patent Infringement, Equivalence, and Estoppel

A farmer on a tractor ploughing a sunlit field, with a backdrop of green hills and a molecular structure overlay, symbolising agricultural innovation and chemical formulation.

In a patent infringement case, the Delhi High Court denied Crystal Crop Protection’s request for an interim injunction against Safex Chemicals. The dispute in the case centred on a herbicidal formulation containing Clodinafop, Metribuzin, and a dyeing agent. The Court held that the dye was an essential claim element and that Safex’s dye-free products did not infringe, even by equivalence. It also invoked prosecution history estoppel, noting that Crystal’s own claim amendments precluded a broad claim interpretation.

AI Accessibility Tools and Innovations for Persons with Blindness – GAAD 2025

The image shows how AI is assisting a person with blindness with AI enabled specs and cane to cross a road.

On the occasion of Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD) 2025, some of the global tech giants showcased AI accessibility tools designed to support persons with blindness. These innovations include Braille notetaking, smart glasses, AI-powered screen readers, and inclusive shopping apps. This post highlights how these tools are enhancing digital access and independence.

Compulsory Music License for Events: Delhi HC Rules Against PPL’s Licensing Practices

Image shows corporate event in a banquet hall, where people are dressed in business attire, having drinks and enjoying music.

In a case between Al Hamd Tradenation and PPL, the Delhi High Court ruled that Al Hamd is entitled to a compulsory license because PPL refused to grant a license for a small event at a reasonable fee. The Court stated that Section 31(1)(a) applies to all works, including sound recordings. It observed that demanding an unreasonably high fee constitutes a refusal to license. The Court will now decide the appropriate royalty and licensing conditions.

Supreme Court Upholds Free Speech in Wikimedia Case, Sets Aside Takedown Order

In a clear endorsement of constitutional protections in the digital realm, the Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court directive requiring removal of Wikipedia content related to a defamation suit. The Court held that such pre-emptive takedown orders, absent a compelling constitutional basis, violate the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21, and cannot be sustained within India’s legal framework.

Digital KYC Accessibility and IP Law: Enabling Independent IP Practice for Persons with Disabilities

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Digital KYC Accessibility marks a significant step towards inclusive digital infrastructure for persons with disabilities. The blog examines the judgment’s emphasis on accessibility standards and its broader implications for independent IP practice, particularly in the context of the Indian IP Office’s ongoing accessibility challenges.

Numerical Trademarks and Their Registrability: A Review of the 2929 Case

A stylized illustration of a black steam locomotive pulling four red cargo wagons. Each wagon is labeled with a large white number: 555, 501, 91, and 2929, respectively, from front to back. The train and its wagons symbolize the addition of "2929" numerical trademark to the existing numerical trademarks registered with the Trademark office.

The Delhi High Court has recently allowed the registration of the numerical mark ‘2929’ for cosmetic products. The Court stated that numerals can function as any other trademarks if they are distinctive. In the case, the Court overturned the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks that rejected the 2929 mark on the ground that numeral marks are not distinctive and therefore, cannot be registered.

PS2 Copyright Case: AR Rahman vs Dagar Brothers — Delhi HC Orders Credit, ₹2 Cr Deposit

Illustration of Indian classical musicians playing traditional instruments, with a banner headline about the PS2 copyright case between AR Rahman and Dagar Brothers, highlighting Delhi High Court’s order for credit, ₹2 crore deposit, and ₹2 lakh costs.

In a major copyright case over Ponniyin Selvan 2’s song “Veera Raja Veera,” the Delhi High Court ruled partially in favour of Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar against A.R. Rahman and others, ordering credits to the Junior Dagar Brothers, a ₹2 crore deposit, and ₹2 lakh costs.