India’s First Smell Trademark: CGPDTM Accepts Rose Fragrance for Tyres
On November 21, 2025, the Indian trademark landscape underwent a transformative shift when the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) accepted, for advertisement, India’s first-ever olfactory trademark application. The applicant, Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. of Kobe, Japan, sought protection for a scent mark described as “Floral Fragrance / Smell Reminiscent of Roses as Applied to Tyres” under TM Application No. 5860303, filed on March 23, 2023 for goods falling in Class 12.
10 Critical Intellectual Property Mistakes That Can Destroy Startup
Intellectual property is one of the important yet misinterpreted assets for start-ups. Entrepreneurs intensively focuses on the development of products, market research and validation and fund raising, but they forgot to strategize the IP protection and overlook the importance of the IP protection until it’s too late. These oversights may be catastrophic and potentially destroy years of hard work and invested money.
UKIPO’s New Practice – Bad Faith Objection on Broad Specification
A trademark prosecution practice that is followed by applicants in the IP Offices around the world is filing of trademark application with broad specification of goods or in some cases with class heading. Although few IP Offices, such as United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), among a few others, take measures to curtail broad specification. These offices raise an objection to specification of goods if the same are found to be broad or vague.
Similarly, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has issued a new Practice Amendment Notice (PAN 1/25) regarding overly long or broad specification of goods and services. This notice is not issued suo moto. Rather, it has emanated from Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the case of Skykick UK Ltd v Sky Ltd (2024 UKSC 36).
From Apprehension to Action: Delhi HC on Limits of Quia Timet Actions
In an important pronouncement for Indian trademark jurisprudence, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, on July 28, 2025, highlighted that a mere filing of a trademark application by a defendant does not itself give rise to a cause of action for infringement. The judgment in Deepak Kumar Khemka Vs. Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. clarifies the limits of anticipatory or quia timet reliefs in the absence of actual use. This case reinforces that before filing a suit under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Plaintiff must demonstrate a credible threat predicated on more than abstract apprehension.
The Swift Affair: Finetuning Copyright and Control
WIPO in their guide ‘The Global Digital Music Landscape’, explains that in copyright law every recorded piece of music has two types of copyright, one for the composition which is created by the songwriter or the composer and this is the musical work that an artist performs at the recording, and another for the recording itself, also often termed as sound recording or phonogram, i.e., the master rights with the labels. Copyright law outlines that the rights are, by default vested on different copyright owners. The economic right of reproduction and distribution is often bundled together, either by the law itself or by the industry convention. This consolidation is known as ‘master rights’ in case of sound recordings. There are many aspects of music copyright that are not purely derived from the law but also from the industry conventions, such as the synch and grand rights (the right to use the music on stage, theatre, etc.). Labels usually enter into a 360 deal, or a “multiple rights agreement” with the artists where the label oversees all parts of the artist’s career and has right over a portion of all the revenue that is generated by the artist. Primarily, the record label aims to extract benefit from the artist’s success, sometimes even at the expense of the artist unfortunately.
Triple Identity Test: Key Takeaways from Johnson & Johnson’s ORSL Infringement Suit
Can a product that mimics the look, feel, and name of a well-established brand escape liability by making only superficial changes? This was the central issue before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors., where the plaintiff alleged a blatant attempt to ride on the goodwill of its popular electrolyte drink, “ORSL.” The infringing products, marketed under names like “ORSI”, “ERSI”, and “ElectroORS”, not only adopted similar-sounding marks, but also mirrored the plaintiff’s red-and-white packaging, fruit imagery, and font layout in what appeared to be a calculated act of deception.
Personality Rights and the Bachchan Cases: A New Chapter in Indian Jurisprudence
In recent years, there has been a sudden surge in disputes over personality rights, reflecting the growing commercial and digital value of individual identities. Celebrities and public figures are increasingly confronting unauthorized use of their names, images, voices, and personas often amplified by social media, AI technologies, and global online platforms.
Personality rights sometimes referred to as publicity rights protect an individual’s name, image, voice, likeness, reputation, and other distinctive personal attributes. These rights have gained particular prominence through a series of high-profile cases involving the Bachchan family Aaradhya Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, and Abhishek Bachchan. Even before these, the senior Bachchan had been at the centre of landmark litigation in which the Delhi High Court issued one of the first detailed injunctions against AI-based voice cloning and unauthorized merchandise.
Interpreting Section 3(d) of the Patents Act on Therapeutic Efficacy
In the recent case of Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd vs The Controller of Patents, an appeal was filed by the Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, before the Delhi High Court against the refusal order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs (“Learned Controller” hereafter). The Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd (“Appellant” hereafter) filed an Indian Patent Application no. 3630/DLNP/2011 (“Subject Application” hereafter) as a divisional application from the Parent Indian Patent Application No. 1090/DELNP/2007, claiming novel intermediate compound formula (5a) on the ground of grounds of lack of inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)) and non-patentability under Section 3(d).