Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from 2011

China Trademark Law 2026 Revision: Key Changes Every Brand Owner Must Know

Introduction China has completed the most consequential rewrite of its Trademark Law in over a decade. On June 26, 2026, the 23rd Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Fourteenth National People's Congress adopted a comprehensive revision of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China — the fifth amendment since the law was first enacted in 1982, and the first substantive overhaul since the narrow 2019 revision. The revised law, comprising 87 articles across nine chapters (up from 73 articles in eight chapters under the outgoing law), will enter into force on January 1, 2027. Trademarks registered before that date remain valid. For brand owners, in-house counsel, and IP practitioners with China exposure, this is not a routine update. The revision touches registration standards, opposition timelines, well-known mark protection, damages calculations, and — perhaps most significantly — the treatment of bad-faith and speculative filings that have long troubled foreig...

Delhi High Court Rejects Attempt to Import Claim Amendment from a Related Suit Without Amending Pleadings: Glaverbel S.A. vs. Dave Rose & Ors.

In a significant ruling on patent litigation procedure, Justice A.K. Pathak of the Delhi High Court, in Glaverbel S.A. vs. Dave Rose & Ors. , rejected an interlocutory application seeking to read into the present suit an amendment to a patent claim that had been allowed in a separate, related suit—without the plaintiff amending the pleadings in the present proceeding. The Court further relied on a certified copy obtained from the Patent Office, which confirmed that the amendment in question had not, in fact, been reflected or recorded in the official patent records. Background The plaintiff, vide Interlocutory Application No. 12535/2011 (filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), sought to amend Independent Claim 1 of the patent in suit in CS(OS) No. 594/2007, on the basis that an identical amendment had already been allowed in a related but separate suit, CS(OS) No. 593/2007. The claim as originally granted under Patent No. 190380 read as follows: "A M...

Regulatory Framework Governing Alcohol Advertising and Labelling in India

Minimum Legal Age for Purchase The minimum legal age for the purchase and consumption of liquor in India is not uniform across the country, being a subject falling within the legislative competence of individual states. Depending on the state, this minimum age ranges from 18 years to as high as 25 years, reflecting the diverse socio-cultural and policy considerations that inform alcohol regulation at the state level. Restrictions on Advertising Through Television Indian law imposes significant restrictions on the advertising of alcoholic beverages. With effect from September 8, 2008, the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Rules imposed a complete prohibition on the advertisement of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages through television broadcasts in India. Advertising Through Outdoor Media While television advertising remains entirely prohibited, certain states permit advertising of alcoholic beverages through outdoor media such as billboards and hoardings, albeit sub...

Delhi High Court Directs Inquiry into Missing Trademark Files: DIPP Admits Records Lost During Registry Decentralization

A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court by an aggrieved company, Haldiram, seeking inspection of certain trademark prosecution and opposition files pertaining to its own applications and proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry. In the course of the proceedings, several other parties—similarly unable to access their respective files—applied for and were granted impleadment, joining the petitioner in seeking directions from the Court. Registry's Inability to Explain the Missing Files Despite repeated queries from the Court, the Trade Marks Registry was unable to furnish any convincing explanation for its failure to produce the files sought for inspection. In view of this, the Court directed that an inquiry be conducted by the Secretary of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), under whose administrative supervision and control the Patent, Trade Marks, Design, and Geographical Indications offices function. The DIPP, in turn, operates under the Mi...