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.

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.

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.