Skip to main content

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

Supreme Court Transfers Patent Infringement Suit to Prevent Forum Shopping and Multiplicity of Proceedings

 

Summary

The Supreme Court transferred a patent infringement suit from Delhi High Court to Bombay High Court, holding that the first-filed groundless threats suit should be adjudicated alongside the subsequent infringement claim to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, and clarifying that Section 106 groundless threat suits can proceed independently under the Patents Act, 1970.


Background

The dispute arose following the commercial launch of Atomberg Technologies' "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier in June 2025. Atomberg alleged that Eureka Forbes engaged in conduct designed to intimidate and pressure its commercial distributors by issuing threats of legal action for alleged patent infringement. In response, Atomberg initiated legal proceedings under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, filing a suit for groundless threats of infringement in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025. Shortly thereafter, on July 7, 2025, Eureka Forbes filed a patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court, setting the stage for parallel litigation in two jurisdictions concerning substantially overlapping factual and legal issues.

Atomberg's Arguments

Atomberg contended that Eureka Forbes deliberately engaged in "forum shopping" by manufacturing jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court through a single online product purchase, notwithstanding that both companies maintain their registered offices in Mumbai. Atomberg emphasized that permitting separate trials in different High Courts on overlapping facts and legal questions would create substantial risk of inconsistent findings, undermine judicial economy, and waste precious judicial resources. Atomberg asserted that its suit, having been filed first and in the forum where both parties are principally located, should take precedence, and that the Delhi suit should be transferred to Bombay to ensure consolidated adjudication of all related issues before a single forum.

Eureka Forbes' Arguments

Eureka Forbes countered that its patent infringement suit constituted the "substantive" proceeding addressing the core issues of patent validity, infringement, and remedies, whereas Atomberg's groundless threats suit was ancillary and defensive in nature. Eureka Forbes maintained that the Delhi High Court possessed valid jurisdiction based on the transaction that occurred within its territorial limits, and that the infringement suit should proceed independently in Delhi without being subordinated to or consolidated with the Bombay proceedings. Eureka Forbes argued that the nature and significance of the infringement claim warranted independent adjudication in the forum where it was properly filed.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar allowed Atomberg's appeal and transferred Eureka Forbes' patent infringement suit from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court. The Court emphasized principles of judicial efficiency and consolidation, stating: "In the interest of saving precious judicial time and to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, it would be expedient to transfer the suit for infringement...to the Bombay High Court." The Court noted that Atomberg's suit under Section 106 was filed first, and that both suits involved substantially similar factual matrices and overlapping legal questions concerning the same patent and the same product. The Court observed that the location of both parties' registered offices in Mumbai further supported consolidation before the Bombay High Court.

Clarification on Section 106 of Patents Act, 1970

In a significant clarification on patent law jurisprudence, the Supreme Court distinguished the modern statutory framework from the repealed Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The Court observed that unlike the 1911 Act, Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, allows a "groundless threat" suit to proceed independently and is not automatically barred or rendered infructuous by the subsequent filing of a patent infringement suit. This means that a party threatened with infringement allegations may maintain its action for groundless threats even after the patent holder files an infringement suit, and such groundless threats proceedings constitute independent causes of action that must be adjudicated on their merits. This clarification provides important guidance on the autonomy of Section 106 proceedings and protects parties from strategic intimidation tactics that may precede formal infringement litigation.

Significance

The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces several critical principles governing patent litigation in India. First, it affirms that courts will scrutinize attempts at forum shopping, particularly where jurisdiction is established through minimal or contrived connections such as single online purchases, when parties are principally located elsewhere. Second, it emphasizes the importance of the first-filed suit principle and consolidation of related proceedings to prevent inconsistent judgments and conserve judicial resources. Third, it provides definitive clarity that groundless threats suits under Section 106 maintain independent viability and are not subordinate to or subsumed by subsequent infringement suits. The decision sends a clear message that courts will not permit manufactured jurisdiction or strategic forum selection that undermines principles of judicial economy, and that parties seeking to intimidate competitors through infringement threats must be prepared to defend such conduct in the forum where the threatened party has properly initiated proceedings. This ruling will significantly influence litigation strategy in patent disputes and provides important guidance on territorial jurisdiction, consolidation, and the interplay between infringement and groundless threats proceedings under Indian patent law.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024: What the New Flexibility Gives You — and the Hard Deadlines It Cannot Touch

Introduction On 15 March 2024, the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024 came into force and quietly rewrote the rhythm of patent prosecution in India. Practitioners who had spent two decades telling clients "this deadline cannot be extended, full stop" suddenly found themselves revising standard advice: many timelines that were once immovable can now be bought back, at a price, under the liberalised Rule 138. But here lies the trap — and it is a trap that has already caught applicants who read the headlines and not the fine print. The 2024 amendments are subordinate legislation made under Section 159 of the Patents Act, 1970. They can soften only those timelines that live in the Rules . Where the Act itself fixes a period and attaches a consequence — "deemed abandoned," "deemed withdrawn," "shall not be entertained" — no Rule, however generously worded, can rescue a defaulting applicant. Only Parliament can. This article does two things. First, it wal...
Post a Comment
Read more

Keyword Advertising and Trademark Infringement: MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Booking.com B.V. & Ors.

Background By order dated April 27, 2022, Justice Pratibha M. Singh of the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of MakeMyTrip India Private Limited ("MMT") in its suit against Booking.com B.V. and others. MMT had sued to protect its registered trademarks "MakeMyTrip" and its variants, which Booking.com was using as keywords on Google's Ads Program to trigger its own advertisements in Google search results. MMT's grievance was that a search for "MakeMyTrip" frequently displayed, as the very first result in the advertisement category, a sponsored listing for Booking.com — one of MMT's principal competitors. MMT argued that such use of its registered mark by a direct competitor amounted to trademark infringement. Booking.com's Defense Booking.com resisted the injunction on several grounds: It relied on the European Commission's decision in Case AT.40428 — Guess , dated December 17, 2018 (the " Guess decision"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Myanmar's New Trademark Law: A Shift Toward a Modern Registration System

On January 30, 2019, the Parliament of Myanmar passed the country's first modern Trademark Law, marking a significant step toward aligning Myanmar's intellectual property regime with international standards. This legislation will replace the existing practice—under which trademark rights are secured merely by registering a Declaration of Ownership with the Office of the Registration of Deeds—with a formal, examination-based trademark registration system. To administer this new regime, Myanmar will establish an Intellectual Property Office ("IPO") under the Ministry of Commerce. Transition for Existing Registrations Recognizing that numerous trademarks are already on record under the old declaration-based system, the IPO will introduce a "soft-opening" period, commencing in January 2020, during which owners of existing registrations may re-file their marks with the IPO. This re-filing window will remain open for six (6) months, and re-filed marks will be a...
5 comments
Read more