The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Yamaha Motor Co., directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore a cancelled mark based on a rarely used proviso in Section 201. The decision highlights the importance of acquired distinctiveness and may pave the way for more brand owners to reclaim their legacy trademarks.
The case revolved around Yamaha’s appeal against the Registrar’s decision to cancel one of its trademarks due to non-use. However, the court ruled in Yamaha’s favor by invoking a long-overlooked proviso to Section 201, which permits reinstatement of trademarks that may have acquired distinctiveness in the market—even if they have not been in continuous use.
Court Reaffirms Importance of Acquired Distinctiveness
In its detailed judgment, the Court held that Yamaha’s trademark had developed significant consumer recognition and market goodwill prior to its cancellation. Justice [Name Not Provided] observed that the Trade Marks Registry had failed to consider the acquired distinctiveness of the mark—a crucial element of the proviso to Section 201, which grants the Registrar discretionary power to restore such marks under special circumstances.
“Statutory discretion must be exercised in a holistic manner. Ignoring a valid proviso renders the decision incomplete and flawed,” the Court remarked.
The Court concluded that Yamaha’s mark, by virtue of its prior reputation and public association, was eligible for restoration.
A Rarely Invoked Clause Comes to Light
The proviso to Section 201—originally introduced in a 1960 amendment under the previous law—has seldom been cited in recent decades. It allows the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore a cancelled registration if it can be shown that the mark had acquired a secondary meaning or public recognition, thereby distinguishing itself from common or descriptive terms.
Yamaha’s legal team argued that their mark had become synonymous with their brand offerings and enjoyed widespread familiarity among Indian consumers—well before its removal from the register. The court agreed.
Implications for Brand Owners and IP Law
Legal experts believe the verdict could have a far-reaching impact on how intellectual property authorities interpret restoration requests.
“The judgment sets a precedent for trademarks that might have lapsed due to procedural oversights but still hold value in the public domain,” said an intellectual property law specialist not involved in the case.
The decision also acts as a reminder to the Trade Marks Registry to consider all applicable legal provisions, including discretionary ones, when evaluating such cases.
Legal Community Welcomes Clarification
The judgment is being welcomed as a clarifying moment for Indian trademark law, especially for companies—both Indian and international—looking to safeguard legacy marks. It may also prompt revisions in how the Registry processes applications for restoration.
Yamaha’s success in this case could lead to a wave of similar petitions from brand owners seeking to recover rights over dormant or cancelled marks, particularly those with proven public recognition or historical use.
Disclaimer:
This article is an original and independently written news report based on the public judgment and legal reporting available through LiveLaw. It has been paraphrased and reconstructed for clarity, legal accuracy, and to ensure it is free from plagiarism. For further reference, readers may consult the original coverage at LiveLaw.
IP Law
IP law analysis
OpenAI Erases ‘io’ Branding After Trademark Clash with AI Startup IYO
OpenAI has removed all public references to “io” — the hardware startup co-founded by legendary Apple designer Sir Jony Ive — following a U.S. federal court’s temporary restraining order arising from a trademark infringement complaint filed by rival company IYO.
The development marks a significant legal hurdle for OpenAI’s ambitious hardware expansion and raises key questions about brand identity and intellectual property in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry.
What Prompted the Move?
OpenAI, which recently announced a multi-billion-dollar partnership with Ive’s startup to develop a next-generation consumer AI device, quietly removed mentions of “io” from its website, social media platforms, and press announcements. This action came shortly after a federal judge responded to IYO’s claim that OpenAI’s use of “io” could confuse consumers due to the similarities between the names.
In compliance with the restraining order, OpenAI has halted public usage of the brand name, though it maintains that it disagrees with the allegations.
“We don’t agree with the complaint and are reviewing our options,” OpenAI stated.
Background: OpenAI & Ive’s Billion-Dollar Deal
In May 2025, OpenAI entered into a deal with Jony Ive’s design lab LoveFrom and funding support from SoftBank, creating a new hardware venture reportedly valued at $6.4–$6.5 billion. The collaboration is aimed at launching a cutting-edge AI device designed to revolutionize human-AI interaction — a move seen as a challenge to existing consumer electronics players like Apple, Meta, and Amazon.
The device, still under development, is not expected to launch before 2026, and court filings confirm that it is not a wearable or in-ear product, despite earlier speculations.
IYO’s Legal Challenge
The trademark complaint was filed by IYO, a California-based startup that also specializes in AI hardware and is backed by Alphabet’s experimental division. IYO claims that the similarity between “IYO” and “io” could cause brand confusion and potentially harm its market identity.
The federal judge agreed that IYO’s concerns were credible enough to warrant a temporary restraining order, pending a full hearing scheduled for October 2025.
Public Reactions and Industry Implications
The tech community reacted swiftly. Elon Musk, an outspoken critic of OpenAI in recent months, responded to the news with a cryptic “🤨” emoji on social media, adding fuel to the already contentious atmosphere surrounding AI development.
Despite the branding conflict, OpenAI has confirmed that its partnership with Ive remains intact and that the development of the hardware device will proceed as planned.
What’s Next?
A court hearing in October 2025 will determine the fate of the “io” branding.
Meanwhile, the AI-powered device being built by OpenAI and Ive continues to be shrouded in secrecy, with analysts predicting a major reveal in 2026.
Conduit Pharmaceuticals Receives Additional Patent Approval for Lead Autoimmune Disease Asset
Conduit Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: CDT), a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing treatments for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, announced today that it has received further patent approval for its lead therapeutic asset targeting autoimmune conditions. The newly granted patent strengthens the company’s intellectual property portfolio and provides added protection for its innovative approach to treating autoimmune diseases such as sarcoidosis and lupus.
The patent, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), covers key methods of use and compositions relating to Conduit’s investigational drug, which is designed to modulate the immune response in patients with chronic autoimmune disorders. According to company officials, the approval not only broadens the existing patent family but also enhances the commercial potential of the lead compound as it advances through clinical development.
“This new patent grant is a major milestone for Conduit Pharmaceuticals, as it secures crucial proprietary rights over our lead autoimmune asset,” said Dr. David Tapolczay, Chief Executive Officer of Conduit Pharmaceuticals. “Our mission is to bring safe and effective treatments to patients suffering from complex autoimmune conditions, and this patent approval is a significant step forward in protecting the innovation that underpins our approach.”
The company’s lead asset, originally acquired from a major pharmaceutical partner, has demonstrated promising results in preclinical and early clinical studies. The drug works by selectively targeting pathways involved in the overactive immune response characteristic of autoimmune diseases, while minimizing systemic immunosuppression.
Conduit Pharmaceuticals has emphasized its strategy of revitalizing underutilized assets from larger pharmaceutical companies and accelerating them through late-stage development. The expanded patent protection ensures a longer runway for exclusivity, which could facilitate future licensing agreements or commercial partnerships.
Industry analysts view the patent approval as a positive development that enhances Conduit’s valuation and strengthens its position in the competitive autoimmune drug market, projected to surpass $150 billion globally by 2030.
The company plans to continue progressing its lead candidate through clinical trials, with additional updates expected later this year regarding regulatory filings and potential Phase 2 study initiations.
For more information, visit www.conduitpharma.com.
WHO and Medicines Patent Pool Support Nigerian Innovation in Health Diagnostic
In a landmark step towards strengthening healthcare innovation in Africa, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) have announced strategic support for Nigerian-led advancements in health diagnostics. This collaboration is aimed at fostering local innovation, improving access to affordable diagnostic tools, and enhancing the country’s capacity to respond to pressing public health challenges.
The initiative comes under WHO’s Global Initiative on Digital Health and the MPP’s commitment to equitable access to medical innovations. Nigeria has been identified as a critical partner due to its growing innovation ecosystem and urgent need for scalable, cost-effective diagnostic solutions for diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, hepatitis, and HIV/AIDS.
Speaking at a press briefing in Abuja, WHO Nigeria Country Representative, Dr. Walter Kazadi Mulombo, emphasized the importance of locally developed technologies in transforming health outcomes. “Nigeria has demonstrated significant potential in biomedical innovation,” he stated. “By supporting homegrown diagnostic solutions, we aim to empower Nigerian researchers and entrepreneurs to develop tools that are not only technologically sound but also contextually appropriate for local health challenges.”
The partnership will provide technical assistance, funding opportunities, and pathways to intellectual property management through the MPP. Nigerian innovators will gain access to international patent licensing frameworks, regulatory support, and opportunities for technology transfer. This is expected to facilitate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of diagnostics that meet global standards while remaining affordable for local healthcare systems.
“Affordable diagnostics are a cornerstone of universal health coverage,” he said. “Through this collaboration, we aim to bridge the gap between innovation and access, ensuring that promising technologies from Nigeria can benefit both the country and the wider global South.”
Among the early beneficiaries of the initiative is a Lagos-based biotech startup that has developed a rapid point-of-care diagnostic test for tuberculosis, which uses AI-powered image recognition. Another group from Ahmadu Bello University is working on a low-cost paper-based testing kit for hepatitis B and C, tailored for use in rural and underserved communities.
Health experts have welcomed the announcement, noting that empowering local solutions can reduce dependency on imported diagnostics and improve response times during outbreaks. Dr. Amina Balogun, a public health analyst, noted: “This kind of support is crucial for building a self-reliant health system. It’s not just about the tools, but about building confidence and capacity in our institutions and scientists.”
As part of the next phase, WHO and MPP plan to host a regional innovation forum in Nigeria later this year to showcase emerging diagnostic technologies and connect local developers with global health agencies and funders.
This partnership marks a significant step in aligning Nigeria’s innovation capacity with global health goals and demonstrates how strategic international collaboration can empower local solutions to meet both national and international health needs.
Madras High Court ruled in favor of Pfizer’s patent rights
In a recent global patent disputes, the Madras High Court has pronounced a ruling concerning the ongoing patent dispute in the United States involving Pfizer’s drug, VYNDAMAX (also known as TAFAMIDIS), which is used to treat a rare heart condition called transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM).
The case is in focus due to the high stakes involved, as Pfizer holds a patent for VYNDAMAX, which is a formulation of TAFAMIDIS, a drug that stabilizes transthyretin (TTR) protein in the heart, which reduces the life-threatening effects of ATTR-CM. Pfizer’s patent rights on the drug have been contested in several jurisdictions, but this ruling in the Madras High Court is particularly noteworthy, as it reflects the broader international implications of the ongoing patent conflict.
In its order, the Madras High Court emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property, especially for life-saving drugs like VYNDAMAX in pharma sector. The court ruled that Pfizer’s patent for TAFAMIDIS must be upheld in India, despite challenges from generic manufacturers. This ruling reinforces Pfizer’s exclusive rights over the formulation, production or distribution of VYNDAMAX in the Indian market.
The Madras High Court’s decision is groundbreaking for the global pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the realm of patent enforcement. The ongoing patent dispute in the other countries like United States has sparked heated debates over access to affordable medicines versus protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies. VYNDAMAX is considered a breakthrough in the treatment of a condition that severely impacts the heart, and its exclusivity remains a point of contention in markets where generic alternatives are being sought.
Pfizer has expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it affirms the company’s commitment to innovation and patient care. The company further emphasized that the decision will help ensure that VYNDAMAX remains available to those who need it while protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical innovators.
Although, it is expected that this ruling will have limited direct effect on markets outside of India, but it does signify the growing importance of patent protection in the global pharmaceutical landscape. Stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, and competitors, are keenly awaiting further developments in this high-profile case.
As the patent battle continues across borders, it remains to be seen how other jurisdictions will respond to similar challenges regarding VYNDAMAX and whether further legal actions will alter the course of the ongoing dispute.
The case is in focus due to the high stakes involved, as Pfizer holds a patent for VYNDAMAX, which is a formulation of TAFAMIDIS, a drug that stabilizes transthyretin (TTR) protein in the heart, which reduces the life-threatening effects of ATTR-CM. Pfizer’s patent rights on the drug have been contested in several jurisdictions, but this ruling in the Madras High Court is particularly noteworthy, as it reflects the broader international implications of the ongoing patent conflict.
In its order, the Madras High Court emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property, especially for life-saving drugs like VYNDAMAX in pharma sector. The court ruled that Pfizer’s patent for TAFAMIDIS must be upheld in India, despite challenges from generic manufacturers. This ruling reinforces Pfizer’s exclusive rights over the formulation, production or distribution of VYNDAMAX in the Indian market.
The Madras High Court’s decision is groundbreaking for the global pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the realm of patent enforcement. The ongoing patent dispute in the other countries like United States has sparked heated debates over access to affordable medicines versus protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies. VYNDAMAX is considered a breakthrough in the treatment of a condition that severely impacts the heart, and its exclusivity remains a point of contention in markets where generic alternatives are being sought.
Pfizer has expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it affirms the company’s commitment to innovation and patient care. The company further emphasized that the decision will help ensure that VYNDAMAX remains available to those who need it while protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical innovators.
Although, it is expected that this ruling will have limited direct effect on markets outside of India, but it does signify the growing importance of patent protection in the global pharmaceutical landscape. Stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, and competitors, are keenly awaiting further developments in this high-profile case.
As the patent battle continues across borders, it remains to be seen how other jurisdictions will respond to similar challenges regarding VYNDAMAX and whether further legal actions will alter the course of the ongoing dispute.
Longi sues JinkoSolar for infringement of new patent technology
Longi, has filed lawsuits against JinkoSolar for their patent infringement, both the companies are leading players in the solar industry. The legal actions have been initiated in both countries China and the United States.
In China, Longi has filed the lawsuit at the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong and requested an immediate halt to the manufacturing, sales, and offers to sell the allegedly infringing products and other related activities to it. The Court has accepted the case, with an expected trial date of March 20.
In the United States, the lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement of Jinko Solar’s TOPCon and multiple other unspecified photovoltaic module products.
Longi claims that JinkoSolar has infringed upon its intellectual property (IP) related to solar technology, specifically patents concerning the production and design of solar cells and panels. This dispute comes out as both companies are at the forefront of solar technology innovation. The patents plays a critical role in protecting advancements in the highly competitive solar energy sector.
The lawsuits highlight the ongoing tensions in the renewable energy industry, where patent disputes are becoming increasingly common as companies rush to secure a competitive edge in the rapidly growing market for solar energy products. In these types of cases, the outcome can impact product sales, partnerships, and overall market positioning for the companies involved.
It remains to be seen how these lawsuits will unfold, but they signal the importance of intellectual property rights in the clean energy sector.
In China, Longi has filed the lawsuit at the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong and requested an immediate halt to the manufacturing, sales, and offers to sell the allegedly infringing products and other related activities to it. The Court has accepted the case, with an expected trial date of March 20.
In the United States, the lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement of Jinko Solar’s TOPCon and multiple other unspecified photovoltaic module products.
Longi claims that JinkoSolar has infringed upon its intellectual property (IP) related to solar technology, specifically patents concerning the production and design of solar cells and panels. This dispute comes out as both companies are at the forefront of solar technology innovation. The patents plays a critical role in protecting advancements in the highly competitive solar energy sector.
The lawsuits highlight the ongoing tensions in the renewable energy industry, where patent disputes are becoming increasingly common as companies rush to secure a competitive edge in the rapidly growing market for solar energy products. In these types of cases, the outcome can impact product sales, partnerships, and overall market positioning for the companies involved.
It remains to be seen how these lawsuits will unfold, but they signal the importance of intellectual property rights in the clean energy sector.
Use Of Sanskrit for new patent technology
The Lok Sabha secretariat has decided to provide simultaneous interpretation of parliamentary proceedings in Six different languages including Sanskrit. This introduction of Sanskrit interpretation in the Lok Sabha is a testament to the government’s efforts to bring the language into the mainstream. This initiative can serve as a stepping stone for broader applications of Sanskrit in official, scientific, and legal frameworks and proceedings. As a language if it can facilitate real-time parliamentary debates, why not intellectual property filings? In current era other countries are embracing their linguistic heritage in scientific and technical field. India has the opportunity to take a pioneering step by integrating Sanskrit into its patent system.
Although, Sanskrit itself is not directly related to patent or the legal world in the same way as English or other common languages for intellectual property. However, there are a few reasons why Sanskrit might come up in discussions related to patents or intellectual property, even if it’s not the primary language of patents:
1. Historical Context: Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages in the world and has a rich historical and cultural significance. If a intellectual property involves traditional knowledge, especially from regions where Sanskrit is or was historically used, it may be relevant to discussions on the protection of ancient wisdom or practices. In such cases, Sanskrit could be part of the research or documentation, especially when related to traditional Indian medicine, spiritual practices, or ancient technologies that might be patented.
2. Patent Language Innovation: The Patents are usually filed in legal and technical languages (like English, Chinese, Japanese etc). The creative solutions or innovations described in patents might reference Sanskrit, particularly when the patent involves innovations related to language processing, machine learning, or translation tools for rare or ancient languages. For example, a patent could be related to systems that analyze Sanskrit texts or make them more accessible through modern technology.
3. Symbolic Significance: The companies might use Sanskrit or Sanskrit-based words as part of trademarks and for branding their products and services, especially in tech or pharma industries. If a brand name or concept connected to Sanskrit were part of a larger patent dispute or related to intellectual property rights, it might show up in legal news or patent filings.
4. Technology for Translation: Patents related to AI and natural language processing might be used to improve or automate the translation of ancient languages like Sanskrit into modern languages. This could be valuable in academia, research, and technology, which could tie into the patent landscape.
It can reflects India’s ability to connect its ancient traditions and knowledge with modern needs. By reviving Sanskrit in this modern context, India could underscore the enduring relevance of ancient wisdom in addressing contemporary challenges.
“Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark: Delhi High Court
The recent judgement issued by Delhi High Court on February 7 says that the name “Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark which needs to be protected as per law.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while hearing a trademark suit filed by Tata Group and Sir Ratan Tata Trust against misusing the Tata brand, trademarks and the name of late Ratan Tata. [Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs Dr. Rajat Srivastava].
On February 7, 2025, the court prohibited Rajat Srivastava, from hosting an event under the name “Ratan Tata Icon Award.” The court also restricted him from using the name and photograph of the late Ratan Tata for any purpose, including conferring any awards. The judgement is to protect the reputation and legacy of Ratan Tata, a highly respected business figure and philanthropist. The injunction likely stems from concerns over the misuse of his name and image in a manner that could potentially mislead or cause confusion about his endorsement of such events.
Generally, a well-known trademark is a mark that has achieved such a high degree of recognition among the public. It’s a mark that’s so famous and recognizable that its mere presence evokes the brand in the minds of consumers.
The lawsuit filed by Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust emphasized the long-standing reputation and legacy of the Tata name, which has been a symbol of trust, quality, and ethical business practices in India for over 150 years. They argued that the unauthorized use of the Tata name and Ratan Tata’s image, particularly in the organization of events and awards, misled the public into thinking the Tata entities were endorsing them.
Rajat Srivastava and his organization, allegedly exploited the Tata brand’s goodwill by charging nomination fees for the event and promoting it across social media platforms. This created confusion among the public, making them believe the event was connected to or endorsed by the Tata Trusts. Despite the Tata Trusts issuing a takedown notice to stop such promotions, the defendants allegedly continued advertising the event, prompting the legal action.
The court ruled in favor of the Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trusts, granting them a permanent injunction against Rajat Srivastava and his organization. This means that the defendants are now permanently prohibited from using the Tata name, trademarks, or Ratan Tata’s image in any future events, promotions, or activities. However, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit confirming their commitment to not engage in such activities going forward.
While the plaintiffs, Tata Group and the Tata Trusts, expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling, they chose to waive any claims for damages or legal costs. This decision emphasizes that their main focus is on protecting the integrity of the Tata brand and preventing future misuse, rather than seeking any financial compensation.
Samsung’s Patent for Galaxy Ring : A wearable ring can control your device
Samsung has filed a patent application which is published on World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of a smart ring that could control other devices like tablets, laptops and may be smartphone. The galaxy ring can read and monitor human health giving vital information and stats.
The application WO/2025/023564 published on WIPO website on 30 Jan 2025.
The ring may provide natural continuity between the display of the electronic device and the screen for displaying the second display of the second electronic device by setting display attributes of the screen to be displayed on each of the display of the electronic device and the second display of the second electronic device based on the location of the second electronic device. The galaxy ring’s movement would understand through the camera of the device and will convert it into a movement across the digital surface. After going through the patent application it seems that the ring can transfer the files between two devices.
However, the exactly working and impact on digital market in the future is something that will come to know with time. Currently, smart rings are offered by only a few reputed brands. However, the current functionality of the smart ring is limited to health and fitness features monitoring.