Despite ongoing global economic uncertainties, innovation continues to thrive as companies and inventors worldwide filed a total of 199,264 patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO) in 2024, according to the newly released Patent Index 2024. This marks a slight dip of 0.1% compared to the previous year, which saw 199,452 applications. The stability in patent filings follows three years of substantial growth, underscoring the resilience of the innovation ecosystem.
The report highlights a 0.3% increase in patent filings from European countries, which include all 39 EPO member states. Meanwhile, filings from outside Europe showed a marginal decline of 0.4%. EPO President António Campinos emphasized that the robust patent activity amid global challenges reflects the ongoing commitment to research and development across industries, particularly in Europe.
“Despite political and economic challenges, European companies and inventors have maintained their momentum in filing patents, showcasing their technological capabilities and ongoing investments in R&D,” said Campinos. “The EPO’s data serves as a strategic roadmap for industries, policymakers, and investors. As outlined in the Draghi and Letta reports, Europe must continue to strengthen its innovation ecosystem, particularly in critical sectors such as green technologies, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors, to remain competitive on the global stage.”
Technological Leadership in Computer and Clean Energy Fields
In 2024, computer technology emerged as the leading sector for patent filings, with a total of 16,815 applications. This category, which includes artificial intelligence innovations like machine learning and pattern recognition, marked the first time it topped the patent charts. Meanwhile, the electrical machinery and clean energy sectors experienced the most significant growth, with a notable 8.9% increase in patent filings. Within this, innovations in battery technology were particularly prominent, surging by 24% as the world continues to push for advancements in sustainable energy.
Global Patent Trends: Shifts in Origins and Growth Patterns
The United States remained the leading country of origin for EPO patent applications, followed by Germany, Japan, China, and South Korea. Collectively, EPO member states accounted for 43% of total filings, while 57% came from outside Europe. South Korea showed the most notable growth, with a 4.2% increase in applications, while filings from the U.S. and Japan saw slight declines of 0.8% and 2.4%, respectively. China, on the other hand, saw a modest increase of 0.5%.
The Role of Large Corporations in Driving Innovation
Large companies continue to dominate the patenting landscape. South Korea’s Samsung emerged as the top applicant in 2024, a position it last held in 2020. The company overtook Huawei, which dropped to second place. Other major players in the top 10 include LG, Qualcomm, and RTX. Notably, the list includes companies from diverse regions: four from Europe, two from South Korea, two from the United States, and one each from China and Japan.
Supporting Small Businesses and Individual Inventors
The EPO also reported a significant contribution from smaller entities. In 2024, 22% of patent applications from Europe came from individual inventors or small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are defined as companies with fewer than 250 employees. Furthermore, 7% of the applications originated from universities and public research institutions. This highlights the appeal of the patent system to smaller innovators, a trend that has been reinforced by the EPO’s 2024 fee reductions for micro-enterprises, non-profits, and academic institutions.
Progress in Gender Diversity
Another noteworthy development is the growing inclusion of women in the innovation process. In 2024, 25% of all patent applications to the EPO from Europe listed at least one female inventor. Among major filing countries, Spain led the way with 42% female inventor participation, followed by Belgium (32%) and France (31%).
As Europe continues to navigate political and economic challenges, the Patent Index 2024 demonstrates that innovation remains a key pillar of economic resilience. The steady stream of patent filings reflects not only technological advancement but also the enduring global commitment to shaping a more sustainable and digitally advanced future.
trademark
Jio Platforms Achieves Milestone with Two Major Intellectual Property Awards, Strengthening India’s Digital Sovereignty
Jio Platforms Limited (JPL), a leading technology company, today announced a momentous achievement in its journey towards advancing India’s technological sovereignty and digital independence. The Jio was honored with two prestigious intellectual property awards by the Government of India and WIPO for its outstanding contributions to technology and innovation. The awards were presented at a ceremony held in New Delhi.
These accolades not only celebrate JPL’s remarkable intellectual property achievements but also highlight the company’s significant role in supporting India’s Aatmanirbhar (self-reliant) vision, particularly within the telecommunications sector.
JPL’s intellectual property strategy is closely aligned with the Government of India’s ‘Viksit Bharat 2047’ initiative, which aims to transform India into a developed economy by promoting technological innovation, digital transformation, and fostering homegrown technological capabilities. As the Indian government works to realize the Bharat 6G vision, JPL is positioned at the forefront of this technological revolution.
With a strong foundation in research and development and a proven track record of deploying indigenous technologies in 5G and Artificial Intelligence (AI), JPL is set to play a key role in shaping the future of India’s telecommunications landscape. Over the past three years, the company has filed more than 4,000 global patent applications, marking a significant leap in India’s intellectual property ecosystem.
These patents span cutting-edge domains in telecommunications, digital technologies, AI, and other emerging fields, establishing JPL as a global leader in technological innovation.
About Jio Platforms Limited:
Jio Platforms Limited, a subsidiary of Reliance Industries Limited, has built a world-class, future-proof, all-IP data network with state-of-the-art 5G and 4G LTE technology through its wholly owned subsidiary, Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited. The network is the only one conceived and built as a Mobile Video Network from the ground up, supporting Voice over LTE technology. It is designed to be future-ready, with easy scalability to support more data as technologies evolve toward 6G and beyond.
Jio has been a transformative force in India’s digital services landscape, enabling the vision of Digital India for over 1.4 billion Indians. The company’s ecosystem encompasses networks, devices, applications, content platforms, service experiences, and affordable tariffs, empowering everyone to live the Jio Digital Life.
Conflict Between Plant Variety Denominations and Trademarks: A Comparative Analysis Across Jurisdictions
In today’s globalized marketplace, intellectual property (IP) law plays a critical role in protecting the rights of creators, innovators, and businesses. Two common forms of IP protection that frequently intersect are plant variety denominations (PVDs) and trademarks. While both legal mechanisms serve distinct purposes, the conflict between them has become increasingly relevant in agricultural and commercial sectors, especially as the international trade of genetically modified (GM) crops and plant products has expanded. This article provides a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional comparison of the conflict between plant variety denominations and trademarks, highlighting the legal frameworks, challenges, and strategies employed by various jurisdictions to address this issue.
Understanding Plant Variety Denominations and Trademarks
Plant Variety Denominations (PVDs)
A Plant Variety Denomination (PVD) refers to the name given to a new plant variety to distinguish it from other varieties. Under the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), breeders of new plant varieties are required to assign a unique denomination. The main objective of a PVD is to provide uniformity and consistency in identifying plant varieties and ensuring that breeders and farmers can clearly distinguish one variety from another.
Trademarks
It typically consists of a word, logo, slogan, or other design element, and is registered with the relevant IP office for protection against unauthorized use by competitors. Trademarks serve to protect the reputation of a product or service and ensure consumers can identify the source of goods.
The Conflict
The conflict arises when the same name is used for both a plant variety denomination and a trademark. This situation creates confusion in the marketplace and may lead to legal disputes. On one hand, PVDs are intended to be public identifiers that cannot be monopolized for commercial purposes, while trademarks serve to protect commercial interests. The tension arises when these distinct legal protections overlap, leading to complex legal questions regarding priority, use, and enforcement.
The Key Issues in the Conflict Between PVDs and Trademarks
Prioritization of Rights
The most fundamental issue is which right takes precedence: the plant variety denomination or the trademark? For instance, a company may register a trademark for a product using a specific plant variety’s name, but a breeder may later apply for a PVD for that very variety. Which right should prevail when the two overlap?
Geographical Jurisdictions and Conflicting Laws
The regulation of plant variety denominations and trademarks varies widely across jurisdictions, creating additional layers of complexity. Some countries, such as the United States and the European Union, have distinct laws regarding PVDs and trademarks, with clear guidelines on how to handle conflicts. Others, like India, have emerging or less defined laws that can lead to uncertainty for businesses and breeders.
Market Confusion and Consumer Protection
Both PVDs and trademarks are intended to prevent consumer confusion. However, when a plant variety name is also used as a trademark, it can be unclear whether the product in question refers to the plant variety or the commercial source. This confusion can lead to misbranding, deceptive advertising, and unfair competition, all of which affect consumer choice and protection.
Global Trade and Plant Breeding Innovation
The international trade of plants and plant products has amplified the need for clarity regarding the protection of plant variety denominations and trademarks. The rise of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and cross-border plant sales has made it more crucial than ever to determine the rules for competing intellectual property claims that affect international trade.
Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to the Conflict
United States
In the United States, plant variety denominations are governed by the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO). Under the PVPA, a plant variety is granted protection if it is novel, distinct, uniform, and stable. The denomination given to the variety must not conflict with any existing trademarks.
However, the U.S. allows for the coexistence of PVDs and trademarks. When a plant variety denomination is similar to an existing trademark, the trademark holder may challenge the use of the name in court, citing the likelihood of confusion. Additionally, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) evaluates trademark applications to ensure that they do not conflict with prior PVDs.
In practice, this means that while a plant variety name may be protected as a PVD, it could be subject to trademark protection if used commercially for branding purposes, provided that there is no conflict with existing trademarks. In case of conflicts, courts or administrative bodies can weigh the competing rights and determine which right prevails.
European Union
In the European Union, the conflict between PVDs and trademarks is addressed through a well-established legal framework. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) handles trademark registration, while the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) manages plant variety denominations.
Under EU law, a plant variety denomination cannot be registered as a trademark if it is identical or confusingly similar to an existing PVD. This rule is designed to prevent consumers from being misled about the nature of the product. Additionally, the CPVO requires that any name used for a plant variety must not conflict with existing trademarks in the marketplace.
In the case of a trademark conflict with a PVD, the EUIPO and CPVO cooperate to assess the potential for consumer confusion. If a trademark application conflicts with a registered PVD, the trademark registration is likely to be refused. This system ensures that plant variety names are kept distinct and not used in a way that could deceive consumers.
India
India has a unique approach to plant variety denominations and trademarks. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPV&FR Act) governs the registration of plant variety denominations in India. The Indian Trademark Act allows for the registration of trademarks related to plants and agricultural products, but there are no specific provisions dealing with conflicts between PVDs and trademarks.
In practice, Indian authorities evaluate whether a plant variety denomination conflicts with a trademark on a case-by-case basis. If the same name is used for both a plant variety and a trademark, Indian courts may rule that the trademark has priority if it was registered first, or they may enforce the PVD if it is determined to be the dominant interest.
Given the developing nature of India’s IP laws, there is still a level of uncertainty in the enforcement of rights related to plant varieties and trademarks. However, the Indian government has been working toward improving the legal framework to ensure clearer distinctions between the two.
Australia
Australia’s approach to the conflict between PVDs and trademarks is guided by the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act (PBR Act) and the Trade Marks Act. Under the PBR Act, the name of a plant variety must be distinctive and not cause confusion with existing trademarks. If there is a conflict, the trademark may be denied if it is found to infringe upon the rights of a registered plant variety denomination.
The Australian system allows for the coexistence of PVDs and trademarks, but businesses must carefully navigate both legal processes to avoid conflicts. When a plant variety denomination and a trademark are identical or confusingly similar, the Australian IP office assesses the likelihood of confusion and takes necessary action to ensure consumer protection and prevent unfair competition.
Conclusion
The conflict between plant variety denominations and trademarks is a complex and evolving issue in global intellectual property law. While PVDs and trademarks serve distinct functions, their overlap in the marketplace presents significant challenges for businesses, breeders, and IP authorities. Jurisdictions such as the United States, European Union, India, and Australia have developed frameworks to handle these conflicts, though the solutions often vary based on local legal cultures and practices.
As international trade and agricultural innovations continue to advance, it is crucial for policymakers to refine existing laws and ensure that the interests of plant breeders, trademark holders, and consumers are balanced. Stakeholders in the agricultural sector must be aware of the potential for conflict and consider legal strategies to protect their interests in both plant variety denominations and trademarks.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Corporate Separateness in Trademark Infringement Damages – Key Implications for Lanham Act Claims
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. that underscores the importance of corporate separateness in calculating damages for trademark infringement. The Court vacated a $43 million profit disgorgement award, a ruling that has far-reaching implications for corporate liability and the recovery of profits under the Lanham Act.
Case Overview: Dewberry Engineers vs. Dewberry Group
The case centers around Dewberry Engineers, a holder of the “Dewberry” trademark, which filed a lawsuit against Dewberry Group, a competing real estate management company. Dewberry Engineers alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, along with a breach of contract claim under state law. The dispute arose from Dewberry Group’s unauthorized use of the Dewberry trademark in promoting its real estate services, despite a prior settlement agreement that prohibited such use.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dewberry Group violated the Lanham Act, concluding that the infringement was “intentional, willful, and in bad faith.” Despite Dewberry Group reporting no profits and relying on cash infusions from its owner, the District Court aggregated the profits of Dewberry Group and its affiliates—non-party entities that held income-generating properties—to calculate the damages, awarding nearly $43 million. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, citing the “economic reality” of Dewberry Group’s operations.
Supreme Court’s Holding: Corporate Separateness Matters
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that profit disgorgement under the Lanham Act is limited to the profits of the named defendant—Dewberry Group in this case—and does not extend to its non-party affiliates. The Court emphasized the longstanding legal principle that separately incorporated entities are distinct legal units with their own rights and obligations.
In this case, because Dewberry Group’s affiliates were not named as defendants and no evidence was presented to pierce the corporate veil, the Court held that the profits of these affiliates could not be included in calculating “defendant’s profits” under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). As the Court noted in remanding the case for a new damages award, “The ‘defendant’s profits’ are the defendant’s profits, not its plus its affiliates.”
Key Unanswered Questions
While the Court addressed the issue of corporate separateness, it did not fully resolve several critical aspects of the case. Specifically, the Court declined to comment on whether the lower court could have used the Lanham Act’s “just-sum” provision (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)) to award a more equitable recovery by considering affiliate profits. This provision allows courts to adjust profit-based recovery when it is deemed “inadequate or excessive,” but the Supreme Court did not rule on whether this approach would have been appropriate.
Additionally, the Court did not address whether plaintiffs could rely on other methods—such as looking beyond a defendant’s accounting records—to assess the “true financial gain” of an infringing party. Nor did it definitively rule on the potential for veil-piercing, leaving open the possibility for future arguments regarding corporate formalities and liability.
Justice Sotomayor’s Concurring Opinion: A Caution on Creative Accounting
In her concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns that corporate separateness could be exploited by defendants to avoid liability through creative accounting. She urged that courts remain vigilant in considering “economic realities” when calculating trademark infringement damages. Justice Sotomayor suggested that the trial court might reopen the record to explore methods of calculating profits that go beyond a defendant’s books, particularly when analyzing financial inflows from affiliates.
Implications for Trademark Owners and Businesses
The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the importance of corporate formalities and the need for careful litigation strategy. Trademark owners pursuing Lanham Act claims must ensure they identify and include all relevant entities from the outset of litigation, especially when dealing with related or affiliate companies that may have benefited from the infringement.
Failing to name all responsible parties could result in an unenforceable judgment, even if the defendant is found liable. Plaintiffs should also consider whether a veil-piercing argument could be made in cases where affiliates may be used to shield profits from infringement.
While the Court’s decision focused narrowly on the aggregation of affiliate profits, it left open significant questions regarding the methods available for determining a defendant’s true financial gain. This leaves room for further litigation on the most accurate and fair way to calculate damages under the Lanham Act.
Conclusion
The Dewberry Group decision reinforces the principle that corporate separateness must be respected in calculating trademark infringement damages under the Lanham Act. It also raises important considerations for plaintiffs in trademark disputes, urging early and strategic planning to ensure a comprehensive approach to damages. While the Court’s ruling narrows the scope of profit recovery, it also leaves open avenues for creative legal arguments and future litigation on corporate liability.
Amazon to pay $39M to Lifestyle for trademark infringement
The Delhi High Court in a recent order on February 26, 2025, ordered Amazon to pay $39 million (approximately ₹340 crore) in damages to Lifestyle Equities CV for infringing upon its ‘Beverly Hills Polo Club’ trademark.
Lifestyle Equities had filed a trademark infringement suit in 2020, alleging that Amazon Technologies and associated sellers of amazon used a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on Amazon’s platform. The court had previously issued an interim injunction in October 2020, restraining Amazon and others from using the infringing logo and directing Amazon Seller Services to remove the infringing products from its platform.
During the proceedings it is found that the Cloudtail India, a major seller on Amazon.in, acknowledged its involvement in the sale of the infringing products and proposed a settlement that would include damages. The court also awarded damages of ₹4,78,484 against Cloudtail, representing 20% of its revenue from infringing products. Amazon Seller Services was removed from the list of involved parties, as it agreed to remove any future listings of infringing products.
This ruling has the importance of trademark protection and the legal consequences of infringement of intellectual property, particularly in the e-commerce sector.
Lifestyle Equities had filed a trademark infringement suit in 2020, alleging that Amazon Technologies and associated sellers of amazon used a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on Amazon’s platform. The court had previously issued an interim injunction in October 2020, restraining Amazon and others from using the infringing logo and directing Amazon Seller Services to remove the infringing products from its platform.
During the proceedings it is found that the Cloudtail India, a major seller on Amazon.in, acknowledged its involvement in the sale of the infringing products and proposed a settlement that would include damages. The court also awarded damages of ₹4,78,484 against Cloudtail, representing 20% of its revenue from infringing products. Amazon Seller Services was removed from the list of involved parties, as it agreed to remove any future listings of infringing products.
This ruling has the importance of trademark protection and the legal consequences of infringement of intellectual property, particularly in the e-commerce sector.
“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.