trademark

Delhi High Court Summons ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’ Over KFC Trademark Dispute

by

The Delhi High Court has issued a summons to ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’, a local restaurant, in response to a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by the globally recognized fast-food chain, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). The legal action stems from KFC’s claims that the eatery is imitating its brand identity and misleading customers.

KFC Alleges Brand Imitation

KFC, operated by Yum! Brands, alleges that ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’ unlawfully uses branding elements that closely resemble those of KFC. This includes similarities in the visual design, menu presentation, and particularly the acronym “NFC”, which KFC claims is a deliberate attempt to confuse customers and exploit the popularity of its brand.

The lawsuit also highlights the use of the word “Nashville” in the restaurant’s name — a term that features prominently in KFC’s own menu item, the “Nashville Hot Chicken.” KFC maintains that this choice of branding is likely to mislead consumers into believing there is an association between the two businesses.

Court Issues Summons

Justice Anish Dayal, presiding over the case, admitted the matter and ordered the defendant to respond to the allegations. The court recognized the potential for consumer deception due to the overlapping branding and has scheduled the matter for further hearing in the coming weeks.

The court acknowledged KFC’s longstanding presence in India and noted that the alleged similarities in branding may amount to “passing off” — a situation where one business misrepresents its goods or services as those of another.

KFC Seeks Injunction and Damages

In the lawsuit, KFC has asked the court to issue a permanent injunction preventing ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’ from using the contested name and related branding. The company is also pursuing financial compensation, citing harm to its reputation and brand equity.

According to KFC, its brand elements — including its signature red-and-white color scheme, the image of Colonel Sanders, and its widely known slogans — have earned significant recognition among Indian consumers over the years. The company argues that any imitation not only confuses the public but also weakens its distinct brand identity.

Implications of the Case

The outcome of this legal battle could have broader implications for the Indian food and hospitality industry, particularly concerning brand protection and intellectual property rights. Legal analysts suggest that the case could set a benchmark on how Indian courts view brand mimicry, especially when smaller entities adopt marketing elements similar to established international brands.

The next hearing is expected to take place in June, where both parties will present their detailed arguments before the court.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Indian Businessman in ‘ELFY’ Trademark Dispute with Pakistani National

by

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to an Indian businessman in a trademark dispute involving the mark ‘ELFY’ against Pakistani national Mohammed Younus Sheikh. The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and upholding fair business practices.

Background of the Case

The dispute centers around the use of the ‘ELFY’ trademark, which the Indian businessman claims to have developed and used in commerce for several years. Mohammed Younus Sheikh, a Pakistani national, had claimed that his company had been using the ‘ELFY’ mark for industrial adhesives since 1981. Sheikh’s company had registered the mark in Pakistan and asserted that it had acquired a transborder reputation, particularly in India.

The Indian businessman contended that he had been using the ‘ELFY’ mark in India since 1988 and had built a significant reputation and goodwill associated with the mark. He argued that Sheikh’s adoption of the same mark in India was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm his business interests.

Court’s Findings

The Delhi High Court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the dates of adoption and use of the ‘ELFY’ mark, marketing materials, and consumer testimonials. The court found that the Indian businessman had established prior use of the mark in India and had built a recognizable brand associated with ‘ELFY.’

In contrast, the court noted that Mohammed Younus Sheikh had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate prior use or registration of the ‘ELFY’ mark in India. The court emphasized the principle of territoriality in trademark law, asserting that the rights to a trademark are generally confined to the jurisdiction where the mark is used and recognized.

Legal Implications

This ruling reinforces the importance of establishing and maintaining clear records of trademark use and registration. It also highlights the challenges businesses may face when operating in international markets, where the risk of trademark disputes can arise due to similarities in branding.

Legal experts suggest that businesses should conduct thorough trademark searches before adopting new marks and consider registering their trademarks in key markets to protect their brand identity and prevent potential conflicts.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in trademark law and the need for businesses to be vigilant in protecting their intellectual property. As global commerce continues to expand, understanding and navigating trademark rights across different jurisdictions will be crucial for businesses seeking to safeguard their brands.

Delhi High Court Affirms Mandatory Timelines Under Rule 100 of Trade Marks Rules 2017

by
In the ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that timelines are mandatory and cannot be waived, even in exceptional circumstances.

Background of the Case
The case arose from a trademark opposition filed by Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. against Dabur India Ltd. Sun Pharma had submitted its evidence within the prescribed two-month period; however, there was a delay of three days in serving the evidence to Dabur. The Registrar of Trade Marks deemed the opposition abandoned due to this delay. Sun Pharma appealed the decision, arguing that the filing was timely, and the delay in service should not result in abandonment.

Court’s Analysis
The Delhi High Court examined the evolution of the Trade Marks Rules, noting that previous versions allowed for discretionary extensions of time. However, under the 2017 Rules, such discretion has been removed, indicating a legislative intent to enforce strict adherence to timelines. The Court referred to Rule 100, which specifies that evidence must be filed within two months from the date of service of the counter-statement.

Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a clear reminder to stakeholders in the trademark domain about the critical importance of adhering to statutory timelines. With the removal of discretionary powers to extend deadlines, parties must exercise due diligence to comply with all procedural requirements within the stipulated timeframes.

Legal professionals and businesses are advised to stay informed about the implications of this judgment and ensure that all actions in trademark opposition proceedings are completed within the prescribed timelines to safeguard their interests.

Metro Brands Gets Interim Relief from Bombay High Court in Trademark Dispute with MetBrands

by

In a significant development in a closely watched intellectual property dispute, the Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to Metro Brands Ltd., a leading Indian footwear retailer, in its trademark infringement case against a startup operating under the name “MetBrands.”

On Monday, the court acknowledged Metro Brands’ longstanding presence in the Indian market and the strong consumer association with its brand name. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the matter, directed MetBrands to refrain from using the contested name or any deceptively similar mark until further orders.

Background of the Dispute

Metro Brands, incorporated in 1955, is a household name in Indian footwear retail with a wide footprint across premium malls and shopping destinations. The company claimed that MetBrands, a relatively new player in the fashion and lifestyle segment, was deliberately using a name strikingly similar to its own, thereby creating confusion in the minds of consumers and riding on the goodwill it has established over decades.

In its petition, Metro Brands argued that “MetBrands” not only shares phonetic and visual similarities but also overlaps in the domain of lifestyle and fashion retail, increasing the likelihood of trademark dilution and brand misappropriation.

Court’s Observations

The Bombay High Court, while hearing the interim plea, noted the potential harm to Metro Brands’ reputation and consumer trust due to the similarity between the two names. The court stated that prima facie, the use of “MetBrands” could amount to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Justice Pitale observed: “Given the longevity and recognition enjoyed by the plaintiff [Metro Brands] in the Indian market, and the phonetic resemblance of the defendant’s brand name, a case for interim injunction is clearly made out.”

Response from MetBrands

MetBrands, in its defense, claimed that the brand name was independently conceived and not intended to mislead consumers. The company also emphasized its limited operational scale compared to Metro Brands, suggesting there was no deliberate attempt to confuse or exploit.

Despite this, the court ruled in favor of granting temporary relief to Metro Brands, citing the need to prevent potential consumer deception and preserve brand integrity.

Legal and Industry Implications

Legal experts see the decision as a strong reinforcement of the importance of brand protection and the judiciary’s proactive stance in safeguarding intellectual property rights. “This interim order sends a clear message to emerging businesses about the necessity of conducting thorough trademark checks and building brand identities distinct from existing market players,” said Renu Arora, a Mumbai-based IP attorney.

What’s Next

The matter is scheduled for further hearing in July 2025, when the court will examine the merits of the case in greater detail. Until then, MetBrands has been restrained from using the disputed mark in any commercial context, including advertising, packaging, and digital presence.

For now, the order comes as a strategic win for Metro Brands, reinforcing its hold over its brand identity while the legal proceedings continue.

“Judge Signals Sanctions Against Patent Attorney for Sharing Netflix’s Confidential Data with Litigation Funder”

by
A federal judge in Oakland has signaled his intent to impose sanctions on patent attorney Bill Ramey and his firm, Ramey LLP, for violating a protective order by sharing Netflix Inc.’s confidential information with a litigation funder. The case stems from a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Finnish inventor Lauri Valjakka against Netflix, in which Ramey represented Valjakka.

During a hearing the U.S. District Court indicated that attorneys’ fees would be an appropriate sanction, noting that they would likely be substantial. The dispute centers on Ramey’s disclosure of Netflix’s source code and financial information to AiPi LLC, a litigation funding company, without proper authorization. Netflix contends that these materials, described as the “crown jewels of its business,” were shared in violation of the court’s protective order, which restricts access to sensitive information to authorized individuals only.

At the hearing, Netflix’s attorney, Sarah Piepmeier of Perkins Coie, argued that AiPi had access to the confidential information before Netflix was aware of the funding arrangement. She expressed concern that AiPi’s possession of Netflix’s proprietary data could influence its decisions in future litigation or inspire new lawsuits. Ramey defended his actions, asserting that the protective order allowed him to share the information with “affiliates,” a category he believed included AiPi’s attorneys. He further claimed that no harm had occurred because AiPi’s lawyers assured him they hadn’t used the materials inappropriately.

Judge Tigar expressed skepticism about Ramey’s defense, stating that having individuals affiliated with a litigation funder review Netflix’s source code constituted a situation of harm. He also indicated that he would consider referring Ramey to the California State Bar or another disciplinary body for further review.

This development adds to a series of legal challenges faced by Ramey and his firm. Earlier this year, Judge Tigar denied Ramey’s application for pro hac vice admission in a separate case, CyboEnergy Inc. v. Netflix Inc., ruling that Ramey had been practicing law in California without a state bar license. Additionally, Ramey has faced scrutiny over his firm’s handling of multiple patent cases in California without proper licensure, leading to questions about his compliance with state ethical standards .

The case, Valjakka v. Netflix Inc., continues to unfold, with potential implications for the intersection of patent law, litigation funding, and the protection of confidential business information.

Unilin Technologies Secures European Patent for Groundbreaking Osiris Wood Recycling Technology

by
Unilin Technologies, the intellectual property division of Unilin, has been awarded European patent EP 4114629 for its pioneering Osiris recycling technology. This patent marks a significant milestone in the company’s mission to foster circular practices in the wood industry and reflects Unilin’s ongoing investment in sustainable innovation.

The patented Osiris system represents the first industrial-scale technology capable of recycling fiberboards—a long-standing challenge in the wood-based panel industry. Historically, the composite structure of fiberboards, which combines wood fibers with adhesives and resins, made them difficult to disassemble and therefore unfit for effective recycling. As a result, these boards typically ended up in landfills or were incinerated, contributing to environmental degradation.

With Osiris, Unilin has developed a scalable and practical solution to this issue. The technology enables the efficient separation of wood fibers from waste fiberboards, which can then be reintegrated with virgin wood to manufacture new fiberboards. This process not only reduces waste but also conserves natural resources by decreasing reliance on fresh wood material.

The Osiris technology is exclusively offered for licensing by Unilin Technologies in partnership with Dieffenbacher, a leading provider of wood-based panel production systems.

“We are proud to receive this patent, which underscores the innovation behind Osiris and the impact it can have on the sustainability of the fiberboard industry,” said a spokesperson from Unilin Technologies. “Our goal is to create real-world solutions that allow manufacturers to reduce their environmental footprint while maintaining high production standards.”

The granting of this European patent further strengthens Unilin’s intellectual property portfolio and opens the door for wider adoption of circular technologies across the board manufacturing sector. With global attention increasingly focused on sustainable production methods, Osiris offers a viable path forward for companies seeking to align with environmental targets without compromising efficiency or quality.

Navigating the Genomics Revolution: The Evolving Role of Intellectual Property Protection

by
More than two decades after the landmark announcement of the Human Genome Project’s completion in 2003, the field of genomics is undergoing a profound transformation. What began as a focus on decoding linear DNA sequences has expanded into a multidisciplinary understanding of the genome’s structural and functional complexity. This includes insights into protein folding, post-translational modifications like glycosylation, and the critical functions of non-coding DNA segments once dismissed as “junk,” such as introns.

In healthcare, personalized medicine, pharmacogenomics, and CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing are transitioning from research to real-world application. Genomic research is also driving the development of disease-resistant crops in agriculture and, in the biotech industry, is converging with artificial intelligence (AI) to accelerate innovations like next-generation sequencing and data interpretation.

This rapid evolution brings renewed focus on how intellectual property (IP) laws can safeguard innovation while keeping pace with scientific complexity. A strategic approach to IP is essential to protect genomics-related breakthroughs across multiple domains.

Patents: The Traditional Tool — and Its Limitations
Utility patents remain a cornerstone of IP strategy in genomics. In the competitive life sciences market, such exclusivity can determine commercial viability. However, the scope of what is patentable, especially in the U.S., is becoming increasingly restrictive.

Key genomic discoveries — like isolated human genes — when naturally occurring, are not patentable under U.S. law. Similarly, diagnostic methods that link biomarkers with disease states often fall outside the scope of patent-eligible subject matter. AI-driven components, such as algorithms used to interpret genomic data, also face hurdles, as abstract ideas and software in isolation typically don’t qualify for patent protection.

Disclosure Challenges in Patent Law
Patents require inventors to fully disclose their invention. This becomes problematic when critical elements of an innovation — like proprietary algorithms or data models — aren’t patentable but are vital to the invention’s function. In such cases, companies may be reluctant to disclose sensitive information that could be exploited by competitors, forcing them to weigh the benefits of limited patent protection against the risk of exposing valuable trade secrets.

Trade Secrets: A Flexible but Fragile Option
When patenting isn’t viable or would reveal too much, trade secrets offer an alternative. This form of protection doesn’t require disclosure and isn’t limited by subject matter rules or duration, as long as the information remains confidential. Genomics-based innovations — such as algorithm development, data modeling, and experimental optimization — are well-suited to trade secret strategies.

However, trade secrets are vulnerable. A single leak — from an employee, partner, or regulatory disclosure — can irreversibly compromise protection. Therefore, robust internal controls, clear access policies, and legal safeguards are essential to maintain secrecy.

Copyright: Protecting the Expression of Genomic Insights
While traditionally associated with creative works, copyright law has found new relevance in the digital era. It now extends to software, source code, and potentially, some aspects of genomics-related data and algorithms. Unlike patents, copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself — which means competitors can replicate the core concept using different language or methods, provided they don’t copy the exact expression.

For genomics, copyright might apply to algorithmic code, databases, or visualization tools used in analyzing genetic data. However, it is a limited tool that works best in conjunction with other forms of IP protection.

Toward an Integrated IP Strategy for Genomics
As genomics continues to push scientific boundaries, no single form of IP protection is sufficient. A multi-layered approach is often required — combining patents for core inventions, trade secrets for proprietary methods or data, and copyright for software or data presentation.

Careful coordination is essential. Over-disclosure in a patent could undermine trade secret protection, while an overly secretive approach might prevent the grant of a meaningful patent. Developing a clear, strategic IP roadmap that aligns with scientific goals and commercial interests is critical for ensuring innovations are protected without sacrificing competitive advantage.

PIL Filed in Supreme Court Against Trademarking of “Operation Sindoor”

by

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging attempts to trademark the term “Operation Sindoor,” which is associated with India’s recent cross-border military strike targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. The plea, filed by advocate Dev Ashish Dubey, contends that the term should remain in the public domain as a symbol of national sacrifice and military valor, and must not be subject to commercial exploitation.

Symbol of National Mourning and Valor

“Operation Sindoor” was the code name attributed to a high-profile military operation carried out in April 2025 following a series of terrorist attacks on Indian soil. The operation garnered widespread national attention and has since become emblematic of India’s counter-terrorism resolve. According to the petitioner, the term has deep emotional and patriotic significance, representing both the grief of the nation and the courage of its armed forces.

Dubey argued in his petition that allowing the term to be trademarked for commercial purposes—particularly for use in entertainment and educational services—would undermine its solemnity. “This term is now a part of national memory,” the plea states. “To commercialize it is to trivialize the sacrifices of the martyrs and disrespect the sentiments of their families.”

Corporate Involvement and Controversy

Among them was an application by Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), which had applied for the trademark under Class 41, covering services related to media, education, and entertainment.

In a public statement, the conglomerate clarified that the filing was made “without proper authorization” by a junior employee and was promptly retracted upon internal review.

Despite the withdrawal, the PIL notes that other private entities have also submitted trademark applications for the term, raising concerns about potential misuse in films, web series, and other commercial content.

Legal Arguments

The petition invokes Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits the registration of terms that are likely to hurt public sentiment or are devoid of distinctive character in the commercial sense. Dubey’s plea argues that “Operation Sindoor” falls within this exception due to its symbolic association with a national tragedy and its lack of commercial originality.

“This is not a brand name or an invented phrase,” Dubey said. “It is a descriptor of a solemn military campaign, and it belongs to the people of India, not to any corporate entity or private individual.”

Call for Judicial Intervention

The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to direct the Registrar of Trademarks to reject any current or future applications seeking to register “Operation Sindoor” as a trademark. The PIL also seeks broader guidelines to prevent similar attempts to commercialize terms tied to national security or military actions.

However, legal experts suggest that the case could set a precedent regarding the ethical and legal limits of branding sensitive national events.

Public Reaction

The PIL has received support from several quarters, including veterans’ associations and civil society groups. Many believe that the term should be preserved as a collective symbol of national pride and not repurposed for profit.

With the Supreme Court expected to weigh in on the matter, the case is likely to spark a larger conversation around the commodification of national symbols and the need for legislative safeguards against such practices.

Agfa Loses Patent Dispute Against Gucci Over Leather Decoration Method

by
Printing technology company Agfa has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against luxury fashion house Gucci, alleging unauthorized use of its patented method for decorating natural leather. The legal battle centered on Agfa’s European patent EP 3 388 490, which covers a process for embellishing leather surfaces with decorative images—a technique the company considers vital to its future innovation strategy.

The dispute specifically involved Gucci’s Pikarar Collection, which Agfa claimed employed its patented method without authorization. However, the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Hamburg dismissed both Agfa’s infringement claim and Gucci’s counterclaim for patent invalidation (Case ID: ACT_561734/2023).

Presiding Judge Sabine Klepsch and her panel deemed both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim admissible, but ultimately ruled against both parties. The court’s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the patent language, drawing on precedent established in earlier UPC rulings, such as the NanoString vs. 10x Genomics case. The court concluded that the interpretation of certain terms in the patent should differ from their conventional meanings, resulting in a finding of no infringement on Gucci’s part.

This case marks the first time a luxury fashion brand has been involved in litigation before the newly established Unified Patent Court. The ruling offers some relief to the fashion industry, although Agfa still has the option to appeal.

Agfa was represented by a legal team jointly led by Daan de Lange of the Netherlands and Kai Rüting of Germany. The case also marked the first major matter handled by Vossius Brinkhof UPC Litigators, a new collaboration between Dutch and German law firms. Other members of the legal team included Stefan Fickert, Ananda Landwehr, Leonie Dissmann-Fuchs, Elard Schenck zu Schweinsberg, Isabelle Kleinveld, and Alexander de Leeuw. Hans Louis Strijckers managed the case internally for Agfa.

Although the decision did not go in Agfa’s favor, the company’s aggressive defense of its patent portfolio signals its strategic focus on emerging technologies in leather decoration.

AI Tools Accelerate Insights in CAR T-Cell Therapy Research for Multiple Myeloma

by
A research team focused on advancing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies has harnessed artificial intelligence tools to streamline data analysis and extract key insights in the field. Their work was highlighted as part of the late-breaking research presented at the 2025 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois.

The investigators explored the evolving landscape of CAR T-cell treatments for multiple myeloma (MM) by leveraging two AI-powered platforms: BiblioEngine, developed by 23Strands, and Cool.AF from Neural Hinge. These tools were used to mine publicly accessible clinical literature, with a focus on manufacturing methods, clinical trial structures, and therapeutic outcomes. The team also conducted a comprehensive review of related patent filings across jurisdictions including the United States, European Union, and India.

By utilizing AI-driven analytics, the researchers efficiently processed large volumes of data and identified emerging trends in how CAR T-cell therapies are developed and applied in real-world clinical settings. The tools enabled detailed comparisons between datasets, shedding light on factors influencing successful patent applications and highlighting the structure of collaborative networks among researchers in the field.

The analysis not only revealed current gaps in MM treatment strategies but also pointed to opportunities for future innovation and patent development. These findings are expected to guide more strategic clinical trial design and support intellectual property planning that avoids overlap with existing patents.

Moreover, the team’s work identified opportunities to foster new research partnerships by mapping the relationships among authors in the field, potentially expanding the collaborative network and accelerating progress in CAR T-cell therapy innovation.