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.

Indian Patent Term Extension Rejected, Section 53 Constitutionally Upheld

Patent Term – Section 53 Challenge The appellants, Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha and another, acquired a patent for a “fuel cell system and an...

Offbeat and Out of Tune: Copyright’s Missing Rhythm in Indian Music

World IP Day and the Best of IP in Music With WIPO’s call to “Feel the Beat of IP” World IP Day 2025 brings music...

Only Copyright Societies Can Issue Licenses: Delhi High Court Strikes a Blow to Music Licensing Practices of PPL, Novex, and Others

Only copyright societies can issue licenses – Delhi High Court decision impacting music licensing by PPL, Novex, and others

In Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., the Court held that Phonographic Performance Limited (“PPL”), though an assignee of copyrights, could not engage...

Copyright Vs Design Protection: Supreme Court’s Purely Artistic and Functional Utility Tests

Digital rendering of a mechanical gear system on a screen, with overlay text: 'Copyright Vs Design Protection: Supreme Court’s Purely Artistic and Functional Utility Tests'

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited affirmed the Gujarat High Court’s decision rejecting an application...

Madras High Court Upholds Patent Validity in Embio Limited vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

The Madras High Court affirmed the validity of Malladi Drugs’ patent for chiral beta-amino alcohols, highlighting the invention’s novelty and inventive step. The judgment clarifies key principles on patent revocation and the definition of a “person interested” under Indian patent law.

“TATA COPPER+ WATER” Trademark Infringement Injuncted with Nominal Damages

The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favour of Tata Sons against trademark and trade dress infringement involving TATA COPPER+ WATER. The defendant, a first-time infringer, was ordered to pay nominal costs and destroy infringing goods as per the court’s structured approach.

Evecare Trademark: Himalaya’s Prior Use Prevails Over Wipro’s Class Differentiation

The Delhi High Court dismissed Wipro’s appeal against an injunction favouring Himalaya’s prior use of the EVECARE trademark. The court held that prior user rights and likelihood of confusion prevailed over trademark class differences in this passing off case.

Only Officers having Quasi Judicial Authority Can Pass Trademark Orders, says the Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that only officers with quasi judicial authority may issue binding trademark orders under the Trade Marks Act. Orders passed by unauthorized officials were declared void, setting a significant precedent for the administration of trademark opposition proceedings in India.

Jumbo Tramples Haathi Trademark Registration

The Calcutta High Court set aside the Registrar’s decision in a trademark dispute involving similar elephant marks for tea products. The court held that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar to Girnar’s well-known “JUMBO” mark and allowed Girnar’s appeal.

Evaluating Trademark Infringement: Holistic View and Goods Differentiation to Determine Likelihood of Confusion

The Gujarat High Court clarified that trademark infringement requires a holistic comparison of marks and their respective goods or services. The court found no likelihood of confusion between Unisn and Unison, highlighting the need to consider all circumstances and the anti-dissection rule in such cases.