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.

You Can’t Live with Liv 333: When Trademark Similarity Turns Costly

In the case of Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited vs Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench examined an appeal against a final decree passed by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement suit. While affirming the injunction against the use of Liv 333, the Division Bench reiterated settled principles on trademark protection, dominant features, and infringement, and looked at the basis on which damages and costs were imposed.

If You List It, They Might Sue: Trademark Infringement, Place of Business, and Online Access

In the case of Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd vs Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench provided a structured analysis of what constitutes territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement actions after examining the plaintiff’s principal office, online listings, and the role of marketing agreements.

From Fine Dining to Trademark Fighting: The Dakshin Breakup Story

In the case of ITC Limited & Anr. vs Adyar Gate Hotels Limited, the court declined to restrain a former collaborator from using the restaurant brand ‘DAKSHIN’. Despite ITC’s registrations, the court held that past agreements, shared use, and acquiescence over decades created factual disputes that must be resolved at trial.

You Can’t Park Patent Rights in the E-Ricksha Registration Lane

In the case of M/s Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors., the Calcutta High Court addressed whether claims of patent rights can prevent registration of e-rickshaws. The court ruled that vehicle registration authorities must act according to statutory rules, and pending patent claims do not automatically restrain registration.

Gen AI, Copyrights, and Hybrid Licensing in India Why the Assumptions May Not Sustain the Model

The DPIIT committee’s proposal for a hybrid licensing model for AI training rests on a set of assumptions about creativity, copyright ownership, collective management, and regulatory control. A closer examination of these assumptions raises important questions about whether the model can deliver the balance it seeks to achieve. In particular, the model appears to strengthen the position of copyright owning entities while offering limited benefits to authors and creators, introduces administrative complexity in a rapidly evolving technological space, and relies heavily on institutional structures that have historically faced governance and efficiency challenges in India. Against this backdrop, the article explores whether India would be better served by an open and carefully calibrated AI training exception, supported by a statutory right that directly recognises and strengthens authors and creators, rather than by an expansive licensing regime built on contested assumptions.

Is a Smarter Scooter Frame Patentable? Court Orders Rethink on Inventive Step

In the case of TVS Motor Company vs Patent Office, a scooter maker’s patent claim for a simple yet novel frame design was rejected for lacking inventive step. The court disagreed with the reasoning and ordered the Patent Office to re-examine the application using a proper test.

No Music License, No New Year Party: Why Hotels Must Tune In Legally

In the case of The Indian Performing Right Society Limited vs Chocolate Hotels Private Limited, the petitioner alleged that Chocolate Hotels planned a New Year’s Eve celebration on 31st December 2025 featuring live music and DJ performances without acquiring the necessary music license. Despite multiple notices, the hotel remained unresponsive. The court, finding a strong prima facie case, passed an interim injunction prohibiting the unlicensed use of copyrighted music.

Copied Tractor Parts, Not the Drawings? That’s Not Infringement

Can you infringe copyright without ever seeing the original work? In a case about tractor parts and engineering drawings, the Madras High Court answered no. It ruled that producing similar tractor components without accessing or copying the original technical drawings does not violate copyright—even if the final parts match in size or shape.

Indian Express vs New Indian Express: Who Owns The Trademark?

In the case of The Indian Express P Ltd vs Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt Ltd, the Bombay High Court considered the terms of a court-recorded settlement to decide if the Defendant’s use of a permitted title in Mumbai breached trademark rights held by the Plaintiff.

UNPLUG YOURSELF Allowed, BOULT Logos Still Blocked

In the case of Exotic Mile vs Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd, the court considered claims of trademark infringement and passing off in relation to competing marks used for audio devices. It limited interim relief to the scope of the pleadings and clarified the legal position on unpleaded claims.