A Legal Issues Seminar – General IP (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Megha Hurkat, Associate, on the issue: “Whether failure to file evidence within the prescribed time limit leads to the opposition being deemed abandoned?” The seminar examined the procedural framework under Section 21(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rules 45 and 46 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 governing the filing of evidence in opposition proceedings. The discussion explored the interpretational issue that arises when evidence is not filed within the prescribed timeline and whether such failure automatically results in the opposition being deemed abandoned. While some decisions emphasize strict adherence to procedural timelines, others have taken the view that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights, and that non-filing of evidence should only restrict a party’s ability to rely on additional evidence rather than result in abandonment of the opposition.

The Presentation can be accessed here.

During the last PWS session, Sonal Kumari, Associate, hosted a discussion on “Should corporations take legal action against protesters who use their brand logos?” The session explored the discussion between trademark enforcement and freedom of expression, particularly in instances of parody and criticism during protests, and considered whether use of trademarks of corporations contributes to legitimate public debate or warrants enforcement actions.

The session highlighted that corporations must balance the need to protect their trademarks against the reputational risks of over-enforcement, including potential public backlash and the Streisand effect. While enforcement is essential to prevent dilution and misuse of marks, an overly aggressive approach may be counterproductive. The session concluded that a calibrated approach rather than aggressive enforcement may prove to be an effective strategy for corporations navigating such scenarios.

A Legal Issues Seminar – General IP (LIS-GIP) Was Conducted By Adyanshi Kashyap, Associate, On “Whether Exclusive Rights Can Be Claimed In A Common Element Shared Across Multiple Marks Of A Proprietor?”

The seminar examined whether the exclusive rights conferred by registration can extend to a common element appearing across multiple marks of the same proprietor under Trade Marks Act, 1999. The discussion explored the interpretational issue that arises where a proprietor adopts several marks containing a common element and seeks to restrain another party from using that element, particularly where that element is not independently registered. While some decisions have declined to recognize exclusivity in such shared elements and emphasized protection of the mark as registered, others have acknowledged that consistent use of a common element across a series of marks may lead it to acquire distinctiveness. The session concluded with the observation that the ability to restrain use of such a common element depends not merely on its presence in multiple marks, but on whether it has, through use, has acquired distinctiveness such that consumers associate it with a single source.

The Presentation can be accessed here.

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.