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.

PAAKASHALA Brand Wins Trademark Injunction: Karnataka HC Rules Against Descriptive Use Defense

An artistic and colorful image of various fruits, vegetables, and food items flying or exploding outward from the center. The composition includes items like tomatoes, bell peppers, onions, broccoli, pineapple, bread rolls, and leafy greens, all suspended mid-air. There are also stylized humanoid food figures interacting with the scene, creating a lively and surreal food battle effect against a bright background.

In a dispute over the restaurant brand PAAKASHALA, the Karnataka High Court restrained a Mysuru outlet from using a similar name. The Court found that the plaintiff, a registered trademark owner, had made out a prima facie case of infringement.

Patent Application for System to Locate Users on P2P Networks Refused under Section 3(k)

Wooden cylinders with letters "P2P" symbolizing peer-to-peer networks, placed on a background of dollar bills. Wooden cylinders with letters "P2P" symbolizing peer-to-peer networks, placed on a background of dollar bills.

The Delhi High Court has upheld the refusal of a patent application for a system that locates users on peer-to-peer networks. The Court ruled that the invention was a computer program per se, excluded from patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.

Employee Free to Join New Firm Despite Employer’s Non-Compete Clause – Delhi High Court

A hand signing an "Employee Non-Compete Agreement" document, overlaid on a black-and-white background of tall office buildings, symbolising corporate employment and legal restrictions.

In a recent case involving a dispute over a non-compete clause, the Delhi High Court ruled that an employer cannot restrain a former employee from joining a new company after the termination of employment. The Court vacated an interim injunction restraining the employee from working with a client of his previous employer.

Fertilizer Patent Case: Court Blocks Sale of ‘Aladdin’ Pending Trial

Illustration of a green fertilizer bag filled with soil and leaves, featuring a prominent green "PATENTED" seal on the front, set against a light beige background.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of SML Limited, restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling a fertilizer composition under the brand ‘Aladdin’, which was found to prima facie infringe SML’s patented invention. The Court held that the patent had survived multiple oppositions and that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for infringement.

MS Subbulakshmi Biopic: Who Owns the Copyright over the Script?

A dignified elderly South Indian singer lady in a traditional silk saree and garland, holding a musical instruments, stands center stage with a composed expression. The background features festive lights and garlands, with gold line-art illustrations of a book, pen and idea being expressed through writing on one side and a film crew overlaying the scene on another side.

In a case between Rajiv Menon and Dr. M.P. Somaprasad, the Karnataka High Court was asked to decide who owned the copyright over the script “MS and Bala” for a biopic on M.S. Subbulakshmi. The Court held that the script was an original work of the defendant and not based on the plaintiff’s book.

Dunlop Trademark Dispute: Eight Opposed Registrations Set Aside by Calcutta High Court

Image showing Industrial factory setting with conveyor belts and workers handling tyres and materials, overlaid with the text 'Dunlop Trademark Dispute' and gavel icons, symbolising a legal dispute over trademark rights.

In a series of eight appeals concerning trademark oppositions filed by Dunlop International Limited against Glorious Investment Limited, the Calcutta High Court set aside orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks allowing Glorious Investment to register the mark “DUNLOP” in various classes. The Court held that the Registrar’s decisions were procedurally flawed, unreasoned, and passed in violation of natural justice.

Design Piracy and Self-Inking Stamps: How the Informed Observer Test Saved Addprint

A visual comparison of two self-inking stamp designs—Addprint's and Trodat Flashy 6904—showcasing multiple differences. On the left, Addprint's design features include a smoky curved top cover, a dug-out shape on the bottom of the top cover, and two line grips connected with a dugged bottom line. On the right, Trodat's design includes a crystal clear top cover, a plain fluent back body face, a four-line grip, smooth bottom and top covers, a dugged bottom cover, an air ventilator, and a top cover with a hole. At the centre is a colourful graphic stating “SAME SAME But DIFFERENT” alongside stick figures holding mismatched puzzle pieces, symbolising design differences.

In a design piracy case involving self-inking stamps, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Trodat GmbH and its affiliate against an order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises to manufacture and market a redesigned stamp. The Court held that the proposed design did not amount to piracy under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000.

Billing and Usage Data Invention Not a Business Method Under Section 3(k) of Patents Act

A smiling woman in an office uses billing software on her computer, with a large “PATENTED” seal displayed over the screen, signifying the billing software has received patent protection.

The Madras High Court has ruled in favour of Tekelec Inc., setting aside the rejection of its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act. The Court found the invention addressed a technical problem and did not constitute a business method, ordering a reassessment limited to software-related exclusions.

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.