Kuil Fireworks Industries applied for a composite device mark for Class 13 fireworks. The Registrar refused it under Section 9(1)(a) by treating it as a pure word mark and testing “supersonic” for distinctiveness in isolation. The Madras High Court set the refusal aside the authority cannot dissect a device mark application and the law on this point is now too well settled.
When the Trade Marks Registry refused “PAKODA POINT” under Sections 9(1)(a) and (b), it looked only at the word mark and ignored the device and tagline that formed the composite mark. The Madras High Court set the refusal aside, reaffirming the settled anti-dissection rule, a composite mark must be assessed as a whole, never by breaking it into its component parts.
Prior Art Search Services in India – Patentability, FTO, Validity, and Landscape | Unimarks Legal Solutions Filing a patent application without a prior art search
A Coimbatore entrepreneur filed for “RAW SKINN” in Class 3 for soaps, body butter, and scrubs. The Registrar refused under Section 9(1)(b), calling it descriptive. The Madras High Court set the order aside, holding the mark is suggestive rather than descriptive — and that the Registrar had failed to engage with the applicant’s arguments at all.
Your products are entering foreign markets. Your foreign distributor is asking about trademark protection. A foreign customer has discovered your brand on Amazon. Whatever the trigger, you now need international trademark protection. The right path depends on your target countries and risk profile. This guide walks through both routes.
Three statutory routes can recover unpaid MSME dues in India: a Section 18 MSEFC reference, a Commercial Court suit, and a Section 9 IBC application before the NCLT. Each has a different threshold, timeline, and risk profile. This guide helps MSE founders pick the right route by claim size and buyer behaviour.
Indian patent law does not use the US “utility patent” or “plant patent” classification. Under the Patents Act, 1970, Indian inventors choose between six types of applications: ordinary, provisional, convention, PCT national phase, divisional, and patent of addition. Each serves a distinct strategic purpose. Filing the wrong type — or filing in the wrong sequence — can cost you your priority date or your protection entirely. This guide explains every type with its statutory basis and when to use it.
India does not have “fair use” — it has “fair dealing” under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the difference is legally critical. Section 52 lists specific, closed categories of permitted uses. If your use is not in that list, it is not protected. This guide explains every permitted category, two landmark Indian cases, and exactly what content creators and businesses need to know.
Trademark infringement in India is governed by Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and decided by courts applying the deceptive similarity test established in Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (SC, 2001). This guide covers the legal test, five landmark decisions, where to file your suit under Section 134, the remedies available under Section 135, and the practical steps every brand owner needs to know.
A provisional patent application under Section 9 of the Patents Act, 1970 secures your priority date immediately — at a fraction of the cost of a complete application. This guide covers the exact filing procedure, current fees, the critical 12-month deadline, and the five mistakes that cause Indian inventors to lose their priority rights.
