Uncategorised

Uncategorised news under IP law

Harley-Davidson X350 Patent Revealed in India

by

In an exciting development for motorcycle enthusiasts, the patent for the Harley-Davidson X350 has surfaced in India, sparking widespread speculation about the potential launch of the entry-level roadster in the domestic market. Developed in collaboration with Chinese partner Qianjiang Motor, the X350 is Harley-Davidson’s strategic attempt to expand its footprint in the small-displacement motorcycle segment globally.

What is the Harley-Davidson X350?

The Harley-Davidson X350 is a neo-retro roadster aimed at riders seeking a stylish yet accessible option under the iconic American brand. Originally launched in China, and later introduced in Australia and Japan, the X350 features a 353cc liquid-cooled parallel-twin engine that delivers approximately 36 horsepower and 31 Nm of torque. It comes with a 6-speed gearbox, dual-channel ABS, and upside-down front forks, all packed into a chassis that weighs around 180–195 kg.

India Patent Filing and Market Implications

The surfacing of the patent in India indicates Harley-Davidson’s serious intent to gauge market readiness for the X350. While there is no official confirmation from Harley-Davidson or Hero MotoCorp (its Indian manufacturing partner), the move hints at strategic groundwork being laid for a potential entry.

The X350’s patent in India comes amid the successful run of the Harley-Davidson X440—a single-cylinder cruiser co-developed with Hero MotoCorp and currently the brand’s most affordable model in the Indian market. If launched locally and aggressively priced through Hero’s manufacturing facilities, the X350 could be a game-changer in the mid-capacity motorcycle segment, competing with models like the Royal Enfield Meteor 350, Honda CB350, and KTM 390 Duke.

Expected Price and Launch Timeline

Globally, the Harley-Davidson X350 is priced at approximately CNY 33,388 (around ₹3.9 lakh). If launched in India with deep localization, industry analysts predict a competitive pricing of ₹2.4–3.5 lakh (ex-showroom). However, without substantial localization, the X350 may remain a niche offering due to higher import duties.

Mixed Reactions from Enthusiasts

While some Harley loyalists express reservations about the X350’s Chinese origins, others welcome the idea of a more affordable and modern Harley. Enthusiasts are divided—some see it as a departure from traditional Harley design philosophy, while others view it as a fresh, accessible evolution in the brand’s portfolio.

This news article is based on publicly available information and reports regarding the recent surfacing of a Harley-Davidson X350 patent in India. While no official confirmation has been provided by Harley-Davidson or Hero MotoCorp about its launch in India, the filing of the patent suggests potential future developments. Readers are advised to stay tuned for official announcements. The information presented here is accurate as of the date of publication and subject to change.

OmniActive Sues Bio‑Gen for Patent Infringement Over Eye Health Ingredients

by

OmniActive Health Technologies, a leading global supplier of clinically studied health and wellness ingredients, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Indian nutraceutical firm Bio‑Gen Extracts Pvt. Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,532,035, owned by OmniActive, which protects a proprietary formulation method for combining marigold-derived lutein and zeaxanthin isomers—key carotenoids known to support eye health. This patented technology is at the core of OmniActive’s flagship product, Lutemax® 2020, a premium eye health ingredient used in supplements worldwide.

Allegations Against Bio‑Gen Extracts

According to court filings, OmniActive alleges that Bio‑Gen’s product Lute‑gen® unlawfully uses its patented formulation method. The company claims Bio‑Gen has knowingly infringed upon several claims of its patent, specifically relating to the unique composition and ratio of lutein and zeaxanthin isomers.

OmniActive is seeking:

A jury trial

Compensatory and enhanced damages

Legal cost reimbursement

A permanent injunction against further infringement by Bio‑Gen

The plaintiff emphasized its commitment to safeguarding innovation and customer trust. “We invest heavily in research, clinical validation, and patent protection to provide high-quality, science-backed ingredients.

About the Patented Ingredient – Lutemax® 2020

Lutemax® 2020 is a marigold-derived extract that contains all three macular carotenoids—lutein, RR-zeaxanthin, and RS (meso)-zeaxanthin—in the same ratio as found in nature. Supported by multiple clinical studies, the ingredient has been widely recognized for promoting visual function, reducing eye fatigue, and combating the effects of blue light exposure.

What This Means for the Nutraceutical Industry

This case shines a spotlight on the growing competition and innovation within the nutraceutical and dietary supplement sector. Patent protection is becoming increasingly critical as companies invest in proprietary formulations to differentiate themselves in a crowded market.

About the Companies Involved

OmniActive Health Technologies Ltd.

Headquartered in Mumbai, India, with a major U.S. presence in Bridgewater, New Jersey, OmniActive is known for developing science-driven, clinically validated ingredients. Its portfolio includes actives for eye health, brain function, metabolism, and skin wellness.

Bio‑Gen Extracts Pvt. Ltd.

Based in India, Bio‑Gen is a botanical extract and nutraceutical ingredient manufacturer. Its product Lute‑gen® is marketed as a natural source of lutein and zeaxanthin for eye health supplements.

India Limits TB Drug Sales to Government Health Systems

by

The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) has limited the sale of key TB drugs—bedaquiline, delamanid, pretomanid, and rifapentine—exclusively to government healthcare systems under the NTEP to combat rising drug-resistant TB cases.

In a significant move to curb the growing threat of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB), the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) has issued a directive restricting the sale of certain critical TB medications exclusively to government-run healthcare channels. This regulatory action is aimed at preventing the misuse of essential anti-TB drugs that are now widely available through private retail pharmacies.

🦠 Which TB Drugs Are Affected?

The directive covers four major anti-TB medicines:

Bedaquiline (20 mg and 100 mg)

Delamanid (25 mg and 50 mg)

Pretomanid (100 mg)

Rifapentine (150 mg and 300 mg)

These drugs are considered vital for the treatment of Multi-Drug-Resistant TB (MDR-TB) and Latent TB. Until recently, many of these medicines, including generic versions, were available in the open market, raising alarms among public health experts.

🔒 Restricted Use Under National TB Elimination Programme (NTEP)

As per the DCGI’s order, these drugs must now be:

Supplied only under the NTEP, the government’s national TB control initiative.

Marked with a label caution reading: “For use in National TB Elimination Programme only.”

Distributed exclusively to government hospitals and NTEP-authorized centers.

Removed from private retail and online pharmacy sales.

Drug manufacturers and distributors have been instructed to revise their licenses and update labeling and packaging to comply with the directive. State-level drug regulators are required to ensure compliance and report back to the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

📉 Concerns Over Drug Resistance

The DCGI’s move was prompted by concerns from the Central TB Division over the increasing availability of TB drugs in the private sector, which has the potential to:

Promote irrational use or incorrect dosing,

Contribute to the emergence of drug-resistant TB strains,

Undermine India’s efforts to eliminate TB by 2025.

The patent expiry of bedaquiline and delamanid in 2024 had led to a surge in generic production and uncontrolled distribution.

💊 Background on Drug Regimens

The affected medications are part of advanced treatment regimens, including:

BPaL regimen (Bedaquiline + Pretomanid + Linezolid): Recommended by the WHO and already adopted by India.

Short-course latent TB therapy: Combining rifapentine with isoniazid for 3–4 months.

These regimens have demonstrated high cure rates and fewer side effects compared to older protocols.

🏥 Expert and Public Health Response

Health experts and TB advocacy groups have welcomed the move, noting that:

It aligns India with international best practices.

It enhances treatment supervision, drug tracking, and patient adherence.

It prevents commercial exploitation of life-saving drugs.

Delhi High Court Rules Numbers Can Be Trademarks; “2929” Gets Green Light for Cosmetics

by

In a significant decision that may reshape the way brands use numerals in their trademarks, the Delhi High Court has ruled that purely numerical combinations like “2929” can be valid trademarks under Indian law—provided they are distinctive.

The ruling came in response to a plea by Vineet Kapur, who had applied for the trademark “2929” in Class 3 (which covers cosmetics and similar products). The application, filed in September 2021, was initially refused by the Trademark Registry on the grounds that it lacked distinctiveness and merely consisted of common numerals.

However, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court set aside the Registry’s refusal, stating that the Trade Marks Act, 1999, explicitly allows numerals to be part of trademarks. The Court emphasized that distinctiveness is the key requirement—just like it is for word marks or logos.> “There is no bar in the Trade Marks Act against numerals being used as trademarks,” the Court observed. “An arbitrary number such as 2929, which has no direct reference to the goods, is capable of being distinctive.”The Court directed that the mark “2929” be advertised in the Trade Marks Journal, allowing time for any opposition proceedings. However, it clarified that the applicant cannot claim exclusive rights over individual digits like “2” or “9.”

Precedent-Setting Ruling

This judgment breaks new ground in Indian trademark law, where courts have traditionally focused on wordmarks and logos. While numeric trademarks have been allowed in some earlier cases, such as “501” for Tata Oil Mills and “1001” in other contexts, this is one of the first detailed High Court verdicts dealing specifically with numeric distinctiveness without acquired secondary meaning.Kapur’s application was based on proposed use, meaning he had not used the trademark in commerce at the time of filing. The Court clarified that proof of usage is not necessary in such cases if the mark is inherently distinctive.Legal experts believe this decision could encourage a rise in numeric trademark filings, especially in industries like fashion, cosmetics, and technology, where short, memorable numbers can play a strong branding role.

Implications for Brand Owners

The ruling provides clarity for businesses considering the use of standalone numbers as part of their brand identity. While arbitrary numeric combinations are now more defensible, experts caution that marks may still face opposition if they resemble existing trademarks or lack uniqueness in a particular market.The judgment also underlines the importance of filing trademark applications promptly and crafting distinctive brand elements—numerical or otherwise.

What’s Next

Following the ruling, the mark “2929” will now proceed to advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal. Third parties will have an opportunity to file oppositions before the mark is finally registered. Meanwhile, legal analysts expect a surge in interest around numeral-based trademarks.—Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All brand names and trademarks mentioned herein are property of their respective owners.

Lenskart Admits Trademark Mistake with Titan, Delhi HC Disposes Suit with Consent Decree

by

Lenskart tells Delhi High Court its use of Titan’s trademarks like Titan, TitanEye+ and Fastrack was an inadvertent mistake. The court records statement and disposes the suit with a consent decree.


In a significant development in a trademark infringement case, leading eyewear retailer Lenskart Solutions Pvt Ltd has admitted before the Delhi High Court that its use of trademarks owned by Titan Company Limited was a mistake and not a deliberate act of infringement. The court, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, accepted the company’s submission and disposed of the case through a consent decree.

Trademark Dispute: Titan vs Lenskart

The legal dispute arose after Titan Company Ltd—a Tata Group entity that owns popular eyewear and accessory brands like TitanEye+, Titan, and Fastrack—alleged that Lenskart was using its registered trademarks on its website, both in visible content and as hidden meta tags to boost search engine rankings. Titan viewed this as a clear instance of trademark infringement and passing off and filed a legal suit after sending a legal notice to Lenskart on February 13, 2025.

Lenskart’s Response: Inadvertent Error

In its response to the court, Lenskart clarified that the use of Titan’s trademarks was unintentional. The company emphasized that it never aimed to deceive customers or gain unlawful benefit from Titan’s brand value. Lenskart confirmed that all references to Titan, TitanEye+, and Fastrack had been removed from its website and internal search engine optimization (SEO) metadata.

Court Disposes Case with Consent Decree

Recognizing the prompt action taken by Lenskart and the absence of any challenge from Titan’s legal representatives, the Delhi High Court accepted the eyewear brand’s statement and issued a consent decree, formally binding Lenskart to its commitments. The court did not pass any punitive orders but noted that Lenskart must refrain from similar actions in the future.

Implications for the E-Commerce and Retail Sector

This case underlines the importance of trademark due diligence, especially in the realm of digital marketing where metatag usage can inadvertently cross legal boundaries. The resolution also sets a precedent for how companies can responsibly handle IP disputes by acknowledging errors and taking corrective action swiftly.

Disclaimer:
This article is based on publicly available information from credible legal reporting sources, including Bar & Bench. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All trademarks mentioned belong to their respective owners.

Dr. Reddy’s Challenges Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic Patent in India, Paving Way for Cheaper Weight Loss Drugs

by

Indian pharmaceutical major Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories has mounted a significant legal challenge against Novo Nordisk’s patent for semaglutide, the key ingredient in its blockbuster weight-loss and diabetes drug Ozempic, potentially opening the door for affordable generics in India and other emerging markets.

Filed in the Delhi High Court, the challenge targets Novo’s secondary patent on semaglutide (filed in 2007 and expiring in 2026), which Dr. Reddy’s argues lacks inventive merit and violates Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act — a clause designed to prevent “evergreening” or unjustified patent extensions.

Patent Dispute and Court Proceedings

Novo Nordisk, the Danish pharmaceutical giant, responded with legal action of its own, securing an interim injunction from the Delhi High Court against Dr. Reddy’s and its partner OneSource. The court has temporarily restrained the companies from selling semaglutide-based formulations in India. However, it has allowed them to manufacture and export the drug while the case is pending.

The next hearing is scheduled for August 19, 2025.

Semaglutide: The New Blockbuster Molecule

Semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, is used under brand names like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity. The drug has surged in popularity due to its effectiveness in weight management, contributing to a global market exceeding $29 billion annually.

With India projected to have over 450 million overweight or obese individuals by 2050, the demand for such therapeutics is expected to skyrocket.

Currently, a monthly course of semaglutide via Rybelsus (oral tablets) costs around ₹10,000, while injectable alternatives such as Mounjaro (from Eli Lilly) are priced at approximately ₹17,500. If generics are approved post-patent expiry, prices could drop by 60–70%, making treatment accessible to a broader population.

Indian Pharma Eyes Generics Boom

Besides Dr. Reddy’s, companies like Cipla, Sun Pharma, Biocon, and Lupin are believed to be preparing for post-2026 launches of generic semaglutide. Some have reportedly begun exporting to countries where Novo’s patent has already expired or been challenged successfully, such as Canada, Russia, and certain Latin American markets.

This development mirrors a global trend where generic manufacturers are seizing opportunities to introduce affordable alternatives amid the soaring demand for anti-obesity medications.

Legal and Market Implications

Dr. Reddy’s legal move could set a powerful precedent. If successful, it would significantly reduce time-to-market for semaglutide generics in India, giving Indian pharmaceutical firms a competitive edge globally and delivering cost-effective options domestically.

The case also underscores the growing tension between intellectual property rights and public health interests, particularly in the post-pandemic pharmaceutical landscape where access to essential medications is a national and humanitarian priority.

What’s Next?

August 19, 2025: Delhi High Court hearing on Novo Nordisk’s injunction.

March 2026: Scheduled expiry of Novo Nordisk’s secondary semaglutide patent.

Post-2026: Potential for a flood of semaglutide generics if the patent is invalidated or expires without further extension.

This article is based on publicly available information and legal filings as of June 21, 2025. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical or legal advice. Readers are advised to consult healthcare professionals or legal experts for specific concerns. All trademarks, brand names, and company names are the property of their respective owners.

Kerala Court Orders ₹1 Crore Damages Against Milnna for Trademark Infringement of Milma

by

In a landmark judgment, a Kerala court has slapped a hefty ₹1 crore fine on private dairy company Milnna for illegally imitating the brand identity of the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation, popularly known as Milma. The ruling marks a significant victory for the state-run dairy cooperative, reinforcing the importance of trademark protection and consumer trust.

Case Background

The dispute arose when Milma filed a civil suit against Milnna, alleging that the latter had copied Milma’s trademark, including the brand name, packaging style, colour schemes, font, and the distinctive image of a cow. Milma argued that Milnna’s imitation created a likelihood of confusion among consumers, thereby infringing on its intellectual property rights and diluting its brand value.

Milma, established in 1980 and registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, has cultivated decades of goodwill and market reputation. The court observed that Milma’s brand name, coined in 1983, had attained a high level of consumer recognition across Kerala and beyond.

Court Observations and Verdict

The court held that Milnna’s branding was “deceptively similar” to that of Milma. The judge noted that the visual and phonetic resemblance between the two brands was significant enough to mislead ordinary consumers into believing both products originated from the same source.

The key directives in the court’s verdict included:

Compensatory damages of ₹1 crore to be paid by Milnna for infringing upon Milma’s trademark and damaging its goodwill.

Interest at 6% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the verdict until the payment is completed.

An additional ₹8,18,410 awarded to Milma as reimbursement for legal expenses incurred during the proceedings.

A perpetual injunction restraining Milnna and its associates from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any dairy products that use trademarks, trade dress, or packaging similar to that of Milma.

Milma’s Response

Reacting to the judgment, Milma Chairman K. S. Mani described the ruling as a “strong message to counterfeiters and imitators” and reaffirmed the organisation’s commitment to safeguarding its brand identity and consumer trust.

“This verdict reaffirms the judiciary’s role in protecting the rights of cooperative societies like Milma that work for the welfare of dairy farmers,” said Mani.

Legal Significance

This case sets a vital precedent for enforcing trademark laws in India, especially for cooperative and public sector entities. It highlights the judiciary’s resolve to prevent unfair business practices and protect consumers from deceptive branding.

The judgment also reinforces the fourfold test of trademark infringement, including:

Similarity of marks (visually and phonetically),

Nature of products/services,

Customer base and trade channels,

Evidence of actual confusion.

In all aspects, Milnna was found to have wrongfully benefited from the well-established identity of Milma.

Disclaimer

It is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For accurate legal interpretation, please consult a qualified trademark attorney or refer to the original court documents.

Delhi High Court Upholds IndiaMART’s Safe Harbour Protection in Trademark Case with PUMA

by

New Delhi, June 20, 2025:
In a significant development for e-commerce and intermediary platforms, the Delhi High Court has upheld the safe harbour protection granted to IndiaMART in a trademark infringement case filed by global sportswear brand PUMA SE. The Court ruled that IndiaMART’s inclusion of “PUMA” in its search dropdown does not amount to trademark use or infringement, as it acts merely as a neutral intermediary facilitating buyer-seller interactions.

Background: PUMA’s Allegations Against IndiaMART

PUMA SE had approached the court alleging that IndiaMART enabled the sale of counterfeit products on its platform. A major point of contention was IndiaMART’s autocomplete feature in the search bar, which suggested the term “PUMA” and led to product listings that allegedly included fake items bearing PUMA’s registered trademark. Initially, a single judge bench of the High Court granted an interim injunction directing IndiaMART to block the use of the word “PUMA” in its search bar and remove all infringing listings.

Division Bench Verdict: A Relief for Online Platforms

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court overturned the interim injunction, providing clarity on the limits of intermediary liability:

Not a Trademark Use: The Court held that auto-suggestions in the search bar do not constitute “use in the course of trade” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. These are automatically generated based on user inputs and do not represent deliberate usage or branding by the platform itself.

Intermediary Protection Under IT Act: IndiaMART was deemed to qualify for protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Court recognized the platform as a neutral intermediary that does not initiate or modify the content of the listings.

Compliance with Notice-and-Takedown Obligations: The Court observed that once PUMA notified IndiaMART of the infringing listings, the platform acted promptly to take them down. Therefore, it fulfilled its statutory duty and retained the protection under the safe harbour clause.

Obligations and Responsibilities for Intermediaries

While the Court reaffirmed IndiaMART’s intermediary status, it also clarified that such platforms are required to maintain robust mechanisms for taking down infringing content upon receiving notice from trademark owners. Failure to do so could result in losing safe harbour protection.

Key Legal Takeaways

Legal Point Court’s Ruling

Trademark Use Search bar suggestions are not “use in the course of trade”
Intermediary Role IndiaMART is a passive, neutral intermediary
Safe Harbour Maintained under IT Act Section 79
Takedown Duty Prompt removal after notice is mandatory

Impact on E-Commerce Industry

The ruling is expected to have a far-reaching impact on digital marketplaces, affirming that automated functions like search suggestions do not amount to active infringement. It also reinforces the need for platforms to establish strong internal protocols for addressing IP-related complaints.

Delhi High Court Stops Use of Deceptive “Domino’s” Variants in Trademark Dispute – Interim Relief for Domino’s Pizza

by

The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Domino’s IP Holder LLC and Jubilant FoodWorks Limited, restraining several businesses from using deceptively similar names to the globally recognized “Domino’s” trademark. The court passed the order in response to a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Domino’s against fifteen different entities operating under names such as Domnic’s Pizza, Dominic’s Pizza, Domnik Pizza, Damnic’s Pizza, and similar variants.

🔍 Court’s Findings on Deceptive Similarity

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, observed that the use of these variants could confuse customers due to the phonetic and visual similarity with Domino’s Pizza. Citing the sensitive nature of food-related services, the court stressed that any deceptive similarity in this sector can result in “disastrous consequences on human health.”The judge clarified that for edible goods, the threshold for proving deceptive similarity is lower, as average consumers may not exercise due caution in distinguishing between brand names, especially when placing orders online or in fast-paced environments.

🕵️‍♂️ Domino’s Longstanding Trademark Legacy

Domino’s provided evidence of its trademark lineage, starting in the 1960s under the name “Dominick’s Pizza”, and its transformation to “Domino’s Pizza” in 1965. The brand has since enjoyed uninterrupted use and global recognition. The court acknowledged this longstanding history and the brand’s significant market presence in India and worldwide.

⚖️ Order to Food Aggregators: Delist Infringing Entities

In a significant move, the court also directed popular food delivery platforms Zomato and Swiggy to delist all entities found to be using deceptively similar marks. This highlights the increasing responsibility of digital platforms in enforcing intellectual property laws and protecting consumers from counterfeit or misleading service providers.

⏳ Next Hearing Scheduled

The matter is now slated for its next hearing on September 17, 2025, until which time the interim injunction will remain in force, barring the infringing parties from using the disputed names in any form, including marketing, packaging, delivery, and branding.

🧠 Legal Significance

This case emphasizes the Indian judiciary’s proactive stance in protecting well-known trademarks in the food sector. It reinforces the principle that consumer health and brand integrity must not be compromised by opportunistic imitation or deceptive branding.

📌 Disclaimer:

This article is based on publicly available judicial records and news reports from Bar and Bench as of June 19, 2025. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For detailed legal interpretations, consult a qualified trademark or IP attorney.

Bombay High Court Dismisses TikTok Plea Seeking ‘Well-Known Trademark’ Status in India

by

In a major development in India’s intellectual property landscape, the Bombay High Court has rejected TikTok Ltd’s plea challenging the Trademark Registrar’s refusal to recognize the short-video platform’s name, “TikTok,” as a well-known trademark in India. The court cited national security concerns and the continuing ban on the platform as critical reasons for its decision.

Background of the Case

TikTok, owned by China-based ByteDance, had earlier registered its trademark in India and subsequently sought its designation as a well-known trademark under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. This status offers enhanced legal protection from infringement, imitation, or misuse across all product categories.However, the Registrar of Trademarks denied TikTok’s application in October 2023, citing the platform’s ban in India since 2020. The app was one of several Chinese-origin platforms banned under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act on grounds of national sovereignty and data security.High Court Ruling:

Legality Over Global Popularity

Delivering the verdict on June 10, 2025, Justice Manish Pitale of the Bombay High Court upheld the Registrar’s rejection and ruled that:TikTok’s global fame does not warrant “well-known” trademark status in India.Ongoing non-operation in India due to a government ban undermines any claim of local distinctiveness or reputation.The Registrar was justified in factoring in issues of sovereignty, public order, and national security while denying the application.The court clarified that operation within Indian jurisdiction is crucial for securing enhanced intellectual property status and that foreign entities must adhere to Indian legal standards and geopolitical considerations.

TikTok’s Legal Arguments Fall Short

TikTok argued through its counsel that the Registrar had failed to evaluate statutory criteria under Sections 11(6) to 11(9) of the Trade Marks Act, including global recognition, market presence, and history of enforcement. It maintained that the ban should not negate the app’s branding rights.However, the court found no procedural error or legal flaw in the Registrar’s decision, concluding that the considerations of national interest rightfully outweighed any commercial or reputational merit.

Implications for Foreign Digital Platforms

The judgment marks a precedent-setting interpretation of Indian IP law, particularly in relation to well-known trademarks under Rule 124. Legal experts suggest that this case underscores the importance of active, lawful operation within India as a precondition for obtaining elevated IP status.Moreover, the ruling reinforces that government-imposed restrictions and national security assessments are legitimate grounds for denying well-known status to foreign platforms, even if globally recognized.

⚠️ Disclaimer:

This news article is based on publicly available legal documents and journalistic sources. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or represent the views of TikTok Ltd, the Bombay High Court, or any government body. For legal interpretation or advice, please consult a licensed intellectual property professional.