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.

Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Flag Use Allowed as Court Finds No Prima Facie Trademark or Copyright Violation

Illustration of an actor beside a film clapperboard, with the headline ‘Actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam flag use allowed; no prima facie trademark or copyright violation.

In the case of G B Pachaiyappan vs Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, the Madras High Court addressed claims of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against a political party over its use of a flag allegedly similar to one adopted earlier by a social trust. The court declined to grant interim injunctions.

Yatra Trademark Claim Rejected: No Monopoly Over Common Travel Terms, Says Court

In the case of Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited, the Delhi High Court examined whether a travel company could claim exclusive rights over the term ‘YATRA’. Concluding that the mark was descriptive and not distinctive, the Court refused to restrain the defendant from using a similar mark.

Oral Insulin Patent Case: Efficacy Not a Requirement Under Section 3(e)

In the case of Oramed Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents & Designs, the Calcutta High Court examined the refusal of a patent for an oral insulin composition. The Court held that inventive step cannot be determined by combining prior art without a clear rationale and stated that therapeutic efficacy is not a requirement under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act. The refusal order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Disco Dancer Copyright in Court: Remake, Adaptation, or Sequel?

In a recent case involving the iconic film Disco Dancer, the Bombay High Court examined whether a stage musical and a proposed new film were a remake, an adaptation, or a sequel. The Court held that the musical was an adaptation covered by Shemaroo’s rights, but refused to restrain the new film since Shemaroo had not pleaded infringement in its plaint. The order pointed out the difference between remake, adaptation, and sequel under Indian copyright law.

Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the Rocks

Illustration of a whisky glass with ice next to the blog title 'Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the Rocks

In the case of Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the Supreme Court of India considered whether the respondent’s use of the mark “LONDON PRIDE” for whisky prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants alleged that the respondent copied elements of their registered marks “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S”, including their packaging, colour scheme, and embossed bottles. After reviewing the arguments and legal framework, the Court declined to grant interim relief, holding that the marks were not deceptively similar and that the term “PRIDE” could not be monopolised.

Patented But Still Infringing: Delhi HC Stops Hydromat Valve Sales

Close-up view of industrial metal control valves and piping system, showing aged and weathered valve wheels used for regulating fluid flow.

In the case of Aquestia Limited vs Automat Industries Private Limited & Ors., the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling their ‘Hydromat’ valves. The court held that even a patented product can infringe an earlier patent, and found that the defendants’ valves incorporated the core features of the plaintiff’s fluid control valve patent claims.

Music Creation and Copyright Transfers

A flat digital illustration shows two hands playing a small keyboard, with a floating orange music note and soundwave above. To the right, there is a large “TRANSFER COPYRIGHT” document featuring a treble clef, signature line, copyright symbol, and a pen, symbolizing music creation and copyright transfer.

In the case of Rajesh Jhaveri v. Saregama India Limited & Anr., the Bombay High Court dismissed a bid for interim injunction restraining Saregama from exploiting songs from three albums. The Court held that assignment agreements executed in the late 1980s granted broad rights to exploit the works “by any and every means w

Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearings

In the case of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Delhi High Court set aside a refusal of a Class 16 application. In simple terms, the Court said that an order passed without an effective hearing, and without dealing with the documents on file, cannot stand.

Will Intellectual Property Still Matter in 2034?

The Pathfinders 2034 report looks ahead to two possible futures for intellectual property — one fragmented and dominated by AI at the cost of human creativity, and another connected, inclusive, and balanced. While it sets out clear action points for governments, it rests on two untested assumptions: that IP drives innovation and creativity, and that it must remain central, merely adapting to new technologies. Without asking whether IP truly encourages human ingenuity in an AI driven world, or recognising its costs to access, public welfare, and follow on work, the vision risks repeating old mistakes. What is needed is a balanced, evidence based view that serves creativity, innovation, and the public good together.

Trademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement Suit

Comic-style image illustrating a courtroom scenario. On the left panel, a judge asks a person, "Have you used the trademark?" The person responds, "No, but I intend to!" In the right panel, the word "DENIED" appears boldly in red letters on a bright yellow background.

In Deepak Kumar Khemka v. Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors., the Delhi High Court held that filing a trademark application does not amount to trademark infringement. The Court dismissed the suit in limine, reiterating that infringement under the Trade Marks Act arises only from use in trade – not from proposed registration.