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.

During the last PWS session, Megha Hurkat, Associate, hosted a discussion on “Whether classification of training technologies as “non-expressive use” dilutes the value of creative labour?” The session examined how the classification of AI training as a non-expressive use raises serious concerns about the gradual erosion of the value attached to creative labour. The discussion highlighted that by framing the use of copyrighted works in AI training is purely technical or functional, this approach risks overlooking the reality that AI systems derive their intelligence, stylistic capacities, and commercial utility from vast volumes of human-authored expression. Participants noted that such characterization sidelines the economic and cultural contribution of creators whose works form the backbone of these technologies. The session concluded by highlighting the asymmetry this framework creates, while creative works continue to enjoy robust protection when reused by humans, their large-scale extraction and consumption by machines is often treated as legally invisible, potentially weakening long-standing principles of authorship, attribution, and fair compensation.

A Legal Issues Seminar was conducted by Sonal Kumari, Associate, on the topic “Whether a Registered Proprietor Can Restrain Bona Fide Use of One’s Own Name?”

This session analysed whether a registered trademark proprietor can restrain the bona fide use of a person’s own name under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and examined the statutory interplay between Section 35, which protects bona fide own-name use, and Section 29, which governs trademark infringement.

The discussion highlighted that Section 35 does not provide automatic immunity. The session then examined instances where courts have diverged in their analytical approaches, alternating between the dominant feature test and whole-mark comparison. Ultimately, the session concluded that bona fide use is intention-centric, with courts closely scrutinizing timing of adoption, prior knowledge, proximity of business, and conduct suggestive of goodwill appropriation when determining whether such use can be restrained.

The Presentation can be accessed here.

During the last PWS session, Manish Kumar, Associate, hosted a discussion on “Should India introduce a mandatory ‘One Nation, One Licence, One Payment (ONOL–OP)’ regime for use of copyrighted works in AI training?” The session examined whether mandatory blanket licensing can strike the right balance between safeguarding copyright holders’ exclusive rights and preserving the freedom necessary for AI development. Participants also discussed whether the ONOL–OP framework meaningfully resolves existing legal ambiguities or risks introducing excessive state control through centralised regulation. The session further assessed whether the proposed regime would strengthen India’s creative economy by ensuring sustainable compensation for creators, or whether it could undermine India’s competitiveness in the global AI race. The session concluded with a consensus that the move might be too soon, given the core issue is yet to be decided by the Courts in India and advocated adopting alternative approaches already in place in some jurisdictions.