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.

People’s Pulse on Intellectual Property and What It Means for Business Today

Featured image showing a stylised human pulse graphic with the title “People’s Pulse on Intellectual Property and What It Means for Business Today,” symbolising public perception of intellectual property and business.

The WIPO Pulse Report released recently reveals that people associate intellectual property with trust and authenticity, even as they question value and access in some regions. These shifting perceptions reflect diverse regional experiences rather than a single global pattern.

Intra-Court Appeals Not Maintainable in Trademark Appeals: Calcutta High Court Interprets Section 100A CPC

In the case of Glorious Investment Limited vs Dunlop International Limited & Anr., the Calcutta High Court ruled that no intra-court appeal lies against an order of a Single Judge made under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that once a Single Judge exercises appellate jurisdiction under the Act, a further appeal is barred by Section 100A of the Civil Procedure Code.

Infrared-Based Biomolecule Detection is Not excluded under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act: Delhi HC

Close-up of a metallic microscope lens projecting an infrared beam onto stylized chemical structures, with DNA-like strands and an “IR” graph on a dark background.

In the case of EMD Millipore Corporation vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court held that a non-invasive method for analysing biomolecules is not excluded from patentability under Section 3(i). The Court allowed the applicant to revert to earlier claims and upheld the right to amend claims in appeal.

Creating Similar Voices with AI Infringes Celebrity Rights, Kumar Sanu Case Confirms

In the case of Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee vs Jammable Limited & Ors, the Delhi High Court restrained multiple AI platforms and online intermediaries from creating or circulating synthetic audio mimicking Kumar Sanu’s voice as well as other aspects of his persona. The court found that voice forms part of a celebrity’s personality along with other characteristics, and cannot be used without authorisation.

Come On Barbie, Let Us Stop the Trademark Party

In the case of Mattel, Inc. vs. Padum Borah & Ors, the Delhi High Court barred the use of the word ‘BARBIE’ by a hospitality business, holding that the use of the iconic trademark for unrelated services was likely to cause confusion and dilute the brand. The Court observed that the Defendant’s use of identical marks with stylized pink logos constituted dishonest adoption and granted an injunction to protect the Plaintiff’s rights.

What’s Not Confidential Can’t Be Protected: No Injunction for Disclosed Customer Data

In the case of Indrex Private Limited vs Suresh Balasubramanian, the Bombay High Court examined whether customer information held by a former employee remained confidential after termination of a cooperation agreement. The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain use of such information, but the Court declined, finding that the cooperation terms required disclosure and permitted lawful use by the business partner’s successor.

No Territorial Jurisdiction, No Quia Timet Relief: Lessons from a Patent Case

A stylized laboratory scene showing a large blue capsule being constructed by steampunk-style mechanical arms, with sparks flying. A wooden sign next to the capsule reads "UNDER CONSTRUCTION," symbolizing a drug still in development. Various lab equipment is visible in the background.

In the case of Helsinn Healthcare SA vs AET Laboratories, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain a patent infringement action filed in anticipation of future infringement. The Court examined the territorial reach of Indian courts in web-based patent matters and reaffirmed the principles required to sustain quia timet actions.

AI, Copyrights, and Libraries

Libraries exist to promote access to knowledge, but copyright law regulates and sometimes restricts that access. As artificial intelligence enters the picture, the balance becomes even more complex. AI offers libraries the power to catalogue, preserve, and deliver content faster and more efficiently than ever before, but it also raises questions about training data, ownership of outputs, and potential copyright infringement.

This article explains how Indian copyright law applies to libraries, what exceptions protect them, and why AI can be both an opportunity and a risk. It also sets out practical steps libraries can take — from policy frameworks to risk assessments — to embrace AI responsibly and continue their mission of serving education, research, and culture.

Alia Bhatt Case: Court Stops Ex-Personal Secretary from Sharing Confidential Info

In the case of Eternal Sunshine Productions Pvt. Ltd. vs Vedika Prakash Shetty, the Bombay High Court stepped in to protect sensitive personal data of actor Ms. Alia Bhatt. The court upheld the confidentiality obligations set out in a release letter and restrained the former personal secretary from disclosing private information to the public or media.

India at Global Innovation Rank 38: Progress and the Road Ahead

Featured image displaying the post title India at Innovation Rank 38

India’s rise to innovation rank 38 is no fluke; digital muscle and clusters deliver. The next leap demands early-stage capital, stronger R&D, and faster, simpler IP.