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.

Birkin Bag’s Three-Dimensional Trade Dress Recognised as Well-Known by Delhi High Court

In the case of Hermes International & Anr vs Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr, the Delhi High Court examined whether the shape and configuration of the Birkin bag—registered as a three-dimensional mark—met the requirements for being declared a well-known trademark. The court found that the trade dress had acquired widespread recognition in the luxury fashion market among the relevant public making it well known.

Once the Hearing Is Fixed, the Door Closes on New Evidence in Patent Oppositions

In the case of M/s Hi Tech Chemicals Limited vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., the Madras High Court examined whether documents labeled as additional evidence could be admitted after the hearing was fixed in a post-grant patent opposition. The Court looked at the patent rules, and held that private documents do not qualify as “publications” under Rule 62(4), and are therefore not admissible after the hearing date was fixed.

Ilaiyaraja Cannot License Naguva Nayana, Delhi HC Says Producer Owns Copyright

In the case of Saregama India Limited vs Black Madras Films & Ors, the Delhi High Court upheld the copyright ownership of the plaintiff over the song Naguva Nayana, rejecting composer Ilaiyaraja’s authority to license it. The Court said the defendants could release their film only after depositing a licence fee, if they continued to use the song.

Film Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy Fails Copyright Test: Title, Script, and Ads Not Infringing

Yellow banner with a 3D clipboard showing a red X and check marks, alongside the text “Film Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy Fails Copyright Test: Title, Script, and Ads Not Infringing.

In the case of Everest Entertainment LLP vs. Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar, the Bombay High Court considered whether copyright subsists in the title Me Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy, and whether the defendants infringed the script or promotional content of the film. The Court found no substantial reproduction of the script or advertisements, and held that copyright protection does not extend to the film’s title.

Towards an Inclusive and Accessible IP Society and Ecosystem: Happy International Day of Persons with Disabilities

On this International Day of Persons with Disabilities, we put forth the need for an inclusive IP ecosystem. For many IP attorneys, innovators, and creators with disabilities, accessibility hurdles continue to make engagement difficult and exclusionary. A system that is accessible by design, responsive to facilitation requests, and welcoming of diverse contributors can transform the IP landscape and ensure that persons with disabilities are recognised as equal and essential members of the creative and innovative community.

Comments and Suggestions on Patent Agent Code of Conduct and Patent Rules Draft

DPIIT’s publication of the draft rules and draft Code of Conduct has provided an opportunity for stakeholders to share their views on the future regulatory framework for patent agents. Patent agents at BananaIP Counsels have responded with detailed comments at general and specific levels, offering suggestions that aim to make the framework more practical and suitable for modern patent practice. Their submission seeks to contribute to a balanced ecosystem that enables the continued growth of innovation in India.

Urgency in Patent Infringement Disputes: Supreme Court on Mediation Requirement

In the case of Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory mediation under the Commercial Courts Act can be bypassed in intellectual property cases where continuing infringement creates immediate harm. The Court stated that urgency must be assessed from the perspective of ongoing injury, not simply on the basis of when the suit was filed.

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.

Patent Refusal Cannot Be a Single Line: Calcutta High Court Calls for Reasoned Orders

Yellow road marking with bold black text reading “SINGLE LINE. DO NOT CROSS,” symbolizing the lack of reasoning in the Stromag GmbH patent refusal—a single-line decision that violated principles of natural justice.

In the case of Stromag GmbH vs. Controller General of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that patent refusal orders must contain detailed reasoning. A single-line dismissal, the court said, does not meet the legal standards of a quasi-judicial function and is unsustainable.