A ‘Special Legal Issues Seminar – General IP’ (SLIS-GIP) was conducted by Bhavya and Manish Kumar, Associates, examining the Delhi High Court’s far-reaching directions in Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. on domain name misuse, intermediary liability, and systemic reform in India’s digital ecosystem. The discussion focused on the Court’s findings and directions regarding systemic deficiencies in the functioning of Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) including default privacy masking, absence of robust identity verification, and the “whack-a-mole” phenomenon of repeat infringing domain registrations.

The seminar further explored the broader constitutional and policy implications of the ruling, including proportionality under privacy jurisprudence, the three-fold test for disclosure of personal information, and concerns regarding the shift from adjudication to regulation through judicial directions. The session concluded by reflecting on the judgment as a watershed moment in India’s digital enforcement landscape strengthening trademark protection and consumer trust, while simultaneously raising important questions on intermediary governance, privacy safeguards, and the evolving role of courts in regulating digital infrastructure.

The Presentation can be accessed here.

During the last PWS session, Adyanshi Kashyap, Associate, hosted a discussion on “Should GI Specifications incorporate adaptation of production methods amidst climatic change?” The session explored how Geographical Indications are rooted in a stable link between a product’s qualities and its place of origin, reflected through fixed territorial boundaries and production standards. However, with climate change altering growing conditions, farmers are increasingly forced to adapt cultivation methods, crop varieties, and even growing zones to sustain production.

The discussion noted that while GIs are conditional legal rights premised on authenticity and traceability, they also serve as vital livelihood tools for farming communities. A rigid legal approach risks excluding producers responding to environmental necessity, whereas excessive flexibility may dilute product distinctiveness and weaken consumer trust. The session concluded by emphasizing that the future credibility of GI protection may depend on whether legal frameworks can accommodate climate-driven adaptation without eroding the core link between product and place.

A ‘Legal Issues Seminar – General IP’ (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Vaidehi Gupta, Senior Associate Designee, on “Whether a cause of action for trademark infringement arises at the place where the trademark is registered?”

The seminar dealt with the ongoing discussion on how territorial jurisdiction is determined in trademark infringement matters and the extent to which the office where a trademark is registered influences that determination. The session traced the differing judicial approaches on whether a cause of action arises at the place of registration, and highlighted the complexities involved in treating registration alone as a factor that gives rise to territorial jurisdiction. The discussion concluded with the view that, given the split in views between High Courts, there is a need for greater judicial clarity on whether a cause of action arises at the place where a trademark is registered.

The Presentation can be accessed here.

We are proud to share that ALG India Law Offices LLP has been featured in the World Trademark Review (WTR) 1000 – 2026, reaffirming our position among the world’s leading trademark practices.

🏆 Firm Rankings:
🥈 Silver – Prosecution & Strategy
🥈 Silver – Enforcement & Litigation
🔹 Recommended – Licensing & Transactions

🌟 Individual Recognitions:
🥈 Silver – Sheja Ehtesham
🥈 Silver – Ashwani Balayan
🥉 Bronze – Pranay Bali

We thank our clients for their continued trust and our team for their dedication to delivering strategic, high-impact IP solutions.

A Legal Issues Seminar was conducted by Bhavya, Associate on the topic “Whether the expression “or otherwise” under groundless threats include statements made in legal proceedings?”.

The seminar examined the scope of Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, focusing on the interpretative ambiguity surrounding the phrase “by means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise.” The discussion analysed competing judicial approaches, one adopting an expansive construction to curb extra-judicial intimidation through informal legal threats, and the other emphasising restraint to preserve access to statutory and judicial remedies. The session concluded that while the expression “or otherwise” is sufficiently broad to include informal and private legal threats, it does not extend to statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, ensuring that Section 142 functions as a safeguard against abuse rather than a barrier to legitimate enforcement.

The Presentation can be accessed here.