A Legal Issues Seminar – General IP (LIS-GIP) was conducted by Shivanshi Gupta, Associate, on the issue: “Can a court extend injunctions to new parties after passing a final decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?” The seminar examined the procedural framework under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governing the correction of clerical errors and the exercise of inherent powers of the court. The discussion further explored whether courts retain the power to extend or modify relief after the pronouncement of a final judgment and decree, despite having become functus officio. While some decisions emphasize strict adherence to the doctrine of functus officio and the limited scope of Sections 151 and 152 CPC, restricting post-decree intervention only to review or correction of clerical errors, others have taken the view that courts may, in exercise of its inherent powers, permit impleadment of additional parties and extension of injunctions to effectively address continuing infringement.

The Presentation can be accessed here.

ALG’s Potluck Picnic at Lodhi Garden was a wonderful celebration of ALG, its team camaraderie and growth over the years. Colleagues came together for fun games and a delicious spread of homemade dishes, making the day truly memorable.

We also welcomed our new team members as they stepped into their roles at the firm and surprised them during game time with our very competitive spirit.

ALG’s Annual Potluck is a day we all look forward to each year to get outdoors, play some games and feed the ‘foodie’ in each of us.

Looking forward to more success, milestones, and shared moments with the ALG team!

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.