Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from March, 2013

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Delhi High Court Full Bench Clarifies Scope of "Prior Publication" Under the Designs Act, 2000: Resolving the Conflict Between Dabur India and Gopal Glass Works

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has referred an important question to a Full Bench of the Court, calling into question the correctness of an earlier Division Bench ruling in Dabur India Ltd. vs. Amit Jain & Anr. (2009, Del.), which had held that the mere existence of a design in the publicly inspectable records of a foreign Registrar of Designs does not, by itself, amount to "prior publication" within the meaning of that expression under Sections 4(b) and 19(1)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000 (the "Act"). Background: The Conflicting Precedents The Division Bench in Dabur India Ltd. had concurred with the earlier view of a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Gopal Glass Works Ltd. vs. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs (2006, Cal.), which held that mere publication of designs, specifications, drawings, or demonstrations by a foreign patent office would not, in itself, amount to "publication" sufficient to render an Indian-re...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bombay High Court Holds Mere Website Posting Does Not Constitute Valid Communication of Examination Report Under Rule 38(4)

The Bombay High Court has held that mere posting of an examination report or objection notice on the Trade Marks Registry's website does not amount to valid "communication" of such objection to the applicant, as mandated under Rule 38(4) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002. The Court held that, at the highest, such posting can be treated as having communicated the objection only on the date on which the applicant actually notices it on the website. Consequently, where an applicant applies for a hearing within one month of acquiring such actual knowledge, the application cannot be deemed to have been abandoned for failure to seek a hearing under Rule 38(5). Brief Facts On October 1, 2010, the petitioner applied for registration of the mark "CMA" in Class 41. On March 30, 2011, the petitioner wrote to the Registry, noting that despite repeated inquiries, it had received no response regarding its application, and that this delay was preventing it from offering train...
Post a Comment
Read more

Delhi High Court Division Bench Upholds Restoration of "MBD" Trademark: Union of India & Ors. vs. Malhotra Book Depot

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in Union of India & Ors. vs. Malhotra Book Depot (LPA No. 564 of 2012), has upheld the judgment dated November 29, 2011, passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7882/2010, directing the restoration and renewal of the trademark "MBD" (Class 16) in favor of the respondent, Malhotra Book Depot. The Division Bench, however, modified the direction to require the Registrar to first satisfy itself that the respondent is indeed the registered proprietor or successor-in-interest of the mark, and that no identical or similar marks have been registered by third parties during the intervening period. Brief Facts The predecessors of the respondent—Shri Ashok Kumar Malhotra and late Shri Balbir Singh, trading as M/s. Malhotra Book Depot (subsequently constituted as a partnership of Ms. Satish Bala Malhotra, Ms. Monica Malhotra Kandhari, and Ms. Sonica Malhotra Kandhari)—had applied for and secured registration of t...
2 comments
Read more