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.

Sacred Cow, Groundless Threat: Delhi High Court on Copyrights and Amazon

In the case of Avaia Ventures Private Limited v. Wildship Enterprises Private Limited, a competitor filed successive copyright complaints on Amazon against a seller of silver plated Kamdhenu cow idols, armed with no copyright registration, no court proceedings, and a product page URL where the copyright number should have been. The Delhi High Court found that filing platform level takedown complaints without ever approaching a court of competent jurisdiction is a groundless threat within the meaning of Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court also held, at a prima facie stage, that the Kamdhenu cow with calf is a sacred motif in the public domain and that mass commercial production of more than fifty units had, in any event, extinguished any copyright the complainant may have claimed.

Dhurandhar Song Rights: Oye Oye, Not So Easy

Promotional banner for “The Revenge: Dhurandhar” showing a lone man walking through a fiery, orange-lit urban setting, with bold metallic title text in the foreground and flames surrounding the scene.

In the case of Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors., the plaintiff claimed copyright ownership over Tirchi Topiwale from the film Tridev and objected to its use and remix in Dhurandhar: The Revenge. The defendants relied on a 1988 assignment agreement and earlier uses of songs from Tridev in other films. The court refused interim relief after considering the agreement, prior conduct, suppression allegations, and balance of convenience.

AI and the Future of In-House IP Counsel Jobs in India: Which Roles Will Survive?

In-house IP counsel in India facing a crossroads between AI-automated routine work and strategic business decision-making, illustrated as a professional at a fork in a corporate corridor.

As AI systems grow capable of handling the routine IP tasks that occupy most Indian in-house IP teams, companies will start asking whether large internal departments are still necessary. This piece examines which in-house IP counsel roles are most at risk, and what it will take to stay relevant in an AI-assisted IP landscape.

No Breeze For Atomberg’s Design Claim: Bombay High Court Says Pigeon Fan Looks Different

llustration of a pigeon beside vintage fans representing the Atomberg v Stove Kraft design infringement and passing off dispute.

In the case of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v Stove Kraft Limited, the Bombay High Court dealt with a design infringement and passing off dispute relating to ceiling fans. Atomberg alleged that Stove Kraft’s Pigeon fan copied its registered fan design, but the Court refused interim relief after finding that the proper comparison had to be made with the registered design and not with later product models. The Court also found visible differences between the rival fans and held that Atomberg had not established goodwill in the particular get up of the suit fan for passing off.

Golden Stag Hunts Blue Mangoes: Copyright Claim Falls Short

Golden stag glowing in a dark forest, symbolizing the copyright infringement dispute over Golden Stag and The House of Blue Mangoes.

In the case of Mr. David Davidar vs Ms. Sivasundari Bose, two novels set in South India turned into a long dispute over copyright and reputation. Ms. Bose claimed that The House of Blue Mangoes drew from her manuscript Golden Stag, while Mr. Davidar denied access, denied copying, and challenged the allegations.

Who Produced Money, and Who Owns the Copyright?

In the case of R. Kishore Kumar v. M S R R Cine Productions, the court decided who qualified as the producer and copyright owner of MANI, which was censored as MONEY. The court said that copyright ownership did not depend only on the name in the censor certificate. It depended on who took the initiative and responsibility for making the film, and the court found that Kishore Kumar had done so.

Copyright Enforcement, Quick Court Orders, and the Rise of Intimidatory Tactics

Indian courts have made copyright enforcement faster and more effective. But, the same court friendly environment is now being used by some copyright owners to send intimidatory notices, make inflated claims, and force settlements. Unless controlled, this troll like behaviour may harm the credibility and purpose of the copyright system.

No Copyright in a Golf Swing of Ideas

In the case of Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann vs Kunwar Raghav Bhandari and Ors., the Delhi High Court looked at whether the defendants had copied the plaintiff’s protected expression in a golf format. It held that similarities related to ideas and game mechanics do not amount to infringement. It found that the defendants had not reproduced any protectable expression from the plaintiff’s work.

Copy Paste Creativity Fails the Originality Test

In the case of Bombay Metal Works (P) Limited vs Tara Singh Prop. R.S. Industries (Regd), a dispute arose over competing packaging designs for bicycle parts. The petitioner challenged the respondent’s copyright registrations on the ground that the designs were copied. The court looked at whether the impugned works were original and whether the registrations could stand.

Patent Attorneys: From Strategic Professionals to Ordinary Vendors? The Changing Soul of India’s Patent Ecosystem

For a long time, patent attorneys occupied an important place in India’s innovation and business ecosystem because they helped companies identify protectable value, convert innovation into legal rights, and build patent portfolios capable of supporting business growth and financial success. Today, that position is changing. As artificial intelligence is reshaping patent work, cost pressures are intensifying, quality concerns are weakening, and regulatory as well as contractual burdens are increasing, the patent attorney is facing a future in which specialised professional standing is giving way to a vendor driven role. If that change continues, it will not only affect patent attorneys, but may also weaken the patent ecosystem itself and its contribution to innovation driven growth, commercialisation, and knowledge based progress.