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.

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.