A Special Legal Issues Seminar was conducted by Bhavya and Manish, Associates, on “Year In Review – Notable IP Division Judgments and Developments: Quarter 1 (January to March)”. The session discussed notable trademark and copyright judgements from the first quarter of 2026, highlighting key judicial findings and their implications for intellectual property practice.
The Presentation can be accessed here.
A Legal Issues Seminar – General IP (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Vanshika Gupta, Associate, on the issue: “Whether Procedural Lapses in Trademark Examination Constitute Independent Grounds for Rectification?” The seminar examined the procedural framework under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rule 33 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 governing the issuance of Examination Report. The discussion explored whether lapses in the examination process, including failure to conduct proper searches, non-citation of prior conflicting marks, or defective examination reports, can independently justify rectification or cancellation of a registered trademark. While several judicial decisions have emphasized that compliance with examination requirements is mandatory and that procedural lapses may vitiate the registration process, other decisions have clarified that not every procedural irregularity warrants cancellation unless the registration itself is shown to be substantively invalid under the Act. The seminar further analysed the evolving judicial approach balancing procedural compliance with the protection of substantive trademark rights.
The Presentation can be accessed here.
A Legal Issues Seminar – General IP (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Meghana Killampalli, Associate, on the issue: “When do changes or impairment constitute ‘legitimate reasons’ to restrain further dealing of lawfully acquired trademark goods?”. The session examined the intersection between trademark exhaustion and the rights of proprietors under Sections 29, 30(3) and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The discussion unpacked the evolving jurisprudence from Kapil Wadhwa to Seagate and the recent Geonix decisions, highlighting the judicial shift from a stricter approach toward material alterations to a more nuanced reliance on the “full disclosure” principle for the resale of refurbished goods. The session ultimately highlighted the current legal framework for dealing in “end-of-life” goods, provided through clear packaging disclosures regarding origin and warranty, suffices to overcome claims of impairment and protect the manufacturer’s goodwill.
The Presentation can be accessed here.
A Legal Issues Seminar – General IP (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Alolika Chakraborty, Associate, on the issue: “Whether a passing off action can lie on the basis of use of features registered as a design?” The seminar examined the intersection between design protection and trademark law, and unpacked the evolving jurisprudence from Mohan Lal to Carlsberg and the recent Crocs decisions, highlighting the judicial shift from permitting passing off based on “trademark use” of a design (subject to goodwill and misrepresentation) to drawing a more nuanced distinction between “mere trademark use” and use as part of a larger “trade dress”. The discussion further explored the interpretative tensions arising from the Carlsberg judgement, especially the phrase “not limited or restricted to trademark use alone”, which subsequently led to competing understandings of the threshold for sustaining a passing off action. The seminar ultimately highlighted the continuing uncertainty in the law, particularly in delineating when the use of design elements goes beyond mere trademark use and amounts to protectable trade dress capable of sustaining a passing off claim.
The Presentation can be accessed here.
During the last PWS session, Bhavya, Associate, hosted a discussion on “Should personality rights extend beyond commercial misuse include non-commercial uses of public figures’ identity?”. The session explored the expanding scope of personality rights claims in the digital age, largely arising from unauthorized commercial use such as fake endorsements, AI-generated impersonation, and misleading digital content.
The discussion highlighted that while courts have been justified in granting protection in cases involving clear commercial gain or reputational harm, concerns arise where broad takedown orders and injunctions are issued without clearly distinguishing such misuse from legitimate forms of expression. Such measures may go too far by encroaching upon legitimate forms of expression such as artistic content, parody, and satire. The session concluded that while enforcement remains essential in cases of commercial exploitation, a more calibrated approach may be required to ensure that protection against misuse does not extend into undue control over public discourse.
