legalguruindia.com

Tag: IP law India

  • Shaping The Future of IP Law in India: A Review of Significant Judgement of 2025

    1. Phonetic Similarity

    Pepsico, Inc. v. Jagdamba Foods Pvt.Ltd.IPDATM/210/2023 (popularly known as Lay’s vs Jay’s case)

    PepsiCo Inc., formed in 1965 through the merger of Frito-Lay Inc. and the Pepsi-Cola Company, traces the Lay’s brand to Herman W. Lay’s potato chip business, begun in 1938. In the context of Indian IP Law, Lay’s has been used continuously for over 75 years and has been registered in India since 31 July 1992, acquiring substantial goodwill and recognition as a well-known trademark.

    PepsiCo challenged the respondent’s mark “Jay’s”, alleging bad-faith adoption and deceptive phonetic similarity to “Lay’s”, used for identical goods and likely to cause consumer confusion while unfairly exploiting Lay’s reputation.

    The petition was filed under Sections 47, 57, 9(2)(a), and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and relied on precedents such as Dabur India Ltd. v. Usha (2024) and K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal& Co. (1969), emphasizing prior user rights and phonetic similarity.

    The Calcutta High Court, led by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, allowed the petition and ordered cancellation of the “Jay’s” trademark, holding it to be deceptively and phonetically similar to the well-known Lay’s mark and adopted with mala fide intent to capitalize on PepsiCo’s goodwill.

    2. Visual Similarity

    Lifestyle Equities CV &Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 & APPL. 26455/2025

    The Delhi High Court imposed a fine of ₹339.25 crore on Amazon and its affiliates for trademark and copyright infringement involving the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) logo. The Court found that Amazon, through its private label “Symbol”, sold clothing featuring a horse logo that closely resembled the BHPC emblem, creating the impression that consumers were purchasing authentic BHPC products at lower prices.

    The plaintiffs, Lifestyle Equities C.V. (LECV) and Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (LLBV), owners and licensees of the BHPC trademark, alleged that Amazon Technologies Inc., Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., and Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. had used their registered mark without authorization, causing consumer confusion, dilution of the brand’s goodwill, and financial loss.

    The Court observed that Amazon exercised significant control over Cloudtail’s branding and sales, making it accountable for the infringement. The company’s failure to contest the proceedings was interpreted as an acknowledgment of liability. Highlighting the difficulties of enforcing IP rights against e-commerce intermediaries, the Court held the defendants liable under Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

    The Court awarded the plaintiffs a total of ₹339,25,97,966.60, covering damages for lost sales, royalties, and legal expenses, and disposed of all pending applications. This ruling sends a clear message that e-commerce platforms must adhere strictly to intellectual property laws.

    For businesses navigating complex IP issues, service providers like TMWala can be invaluable. TMWala assists companies in securing trademark registrations, monitoring potential infringements, and enforcing IP rights effectively, ensuring that brands are protected from unauthorized use on e-commerce platforms and beyond.

    3. Registration of Smell Trademark

    Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. NO. TMR/DEL/SCH/2025/16

    In a landmark decision for non-traditional trademarks in India, the Trade Marks Registry accepted Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. (a Japanese company)’s application to register an olfactory (smell) mark for tyres. The mark, described as “floral fragrance/smell reminiscent of roses as applied to tyres” (Application No. 5860303, Class 12), has been accepted and advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 2236 (Nov 2024–2025).

    Filed on 23 March 2023, the application initially faced objections under Section 9(1)(a) (lack of distinctiveness) and Section 2(1)(zb) (absence of graphical representation). To address these, the applicant relied on prior UK registration, decades of commercial use since 1995, international precedents, and a novel scientific graphical representation, a seven-dimensional vector of the scent prepared by a researcher at IIIT Allahabad.

    On 21 November 2025, the Controller General accepted the mark as an olfactory trademark, finding that the scientific representation met the statutory criteria of being clear, precise, self-contained, intelligible, durable, and objective, and directed its advertisement under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registry also noted that a rose scent is arbitrary to tyres and capable of distinguishing the applicant’s products in the market.

    This ruling represents a major advancement in Indian trademark law, recognizing scientifically validated graphical representations as a valid method for protecting non-conventional sensory marks.

    4. Well-Known Mark

    Hermès International &Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited &Anr. CS(COMM) 716/2021

    On 24 November 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark ruling enhancing protection for luxury brands and non-traditional trademarks in India. The Court recognized the three-dimensional shape of the Birkin bag, the “Hermès” word mark, and its stylized logos as well-known trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, bringing Indian jurisprudence closer to global intellectual property standards.

    Hermès, the French luxury house established in 1837, alleged that the defendants had unauthorizedly manufactured, advertised, and sold products deceptively similar to the iconic Birkin bag, constituting trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and misappropriation of goodwill. During proceedings, the defendants admitted that they had not manufactured or sold any infringing products, earned no revenue, and that the images shown were only downloaded from the internet. The plaintiffs accepted these statements, resulting in the grant of injunctions.

    Hermès also sought recognition of its marks as well-known trademarks. After reviewing decades of consistent global use, promotion, enforcement history, and cross-border reputation, the Court concluded that the Hermès marks enjoy widespread recognition extending beyond territorial boundaries. Accordingly, it declared the Birkin bag’s shape, the Hermès word mark, and associated logos as well-known trademarks under Section 2(1)(zg).

    This judgment has far-reaching implications, reinforcing protection for product shape marks, acknowledging global brand reputation even with limited local sales, and deterring misuse of luxury branding at any stage. It also strengthens India’s commitment to enforcing international IP rights.

    For businesses, service providers like TMWala play a crucial role in safeguarding brand assets. They assist in obtaining well-known trademark status, monitoring unauthorized use, enforcing IP rights, and ensuring that both traditional and non-traditional trademarks, including three-dimensional shapes and stylized logos, are fully protected in India and globally.

    | Read the whole article regarding Hermès, marked as the well-known trademark

    5. AI vs Copyright

    ANI Media Pvt Ltd Vs Open Ai Inc & Anr CS(COMM) 1028/2024

    In November 2024, Asian News International (ANI) filed a copyright infringement suit against OpenAI in the Delhi High Court, alleging that ChatGPT reproduced or closely mirrored ANI’s news articles without permission. ANI claimed its content was used to train the AI model for commercial purposes and that ChatGPT’s outputs lacked the creativity required to be considered original under Indian copyright law. OpenAI denied infringement, arguing that the training process is statistical, non-expressive, and that any similarity is coincidental. OpenAI also challenged the jurisdiction of Indian courts, citing no physical presence in India.

    The case raises important questions about AI and copyright, including whether copyrighted material can be used to train large language models, whether AI-generated content can be considered original, and whether Indian courts can assert jurisdiction over foreign AI companies. ANI relied on Sections 13, 14, 51, and 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as well as the Modak doctrine, emphasizing that the AI outputs are derivative and infringing.

    This dispute is a landmark in India, as it could shape future regulations on AI, copyright protection, and digital content.

    For businesses and content creators, TMWala can help navigate such challenges by securing copyright registrations, monitoring unauthorized use of content, and providing guidance on licensing agreements. TMWala also assists companies in understanding emerging legal risks from AI and digital technologies, ensuring compliance with Indian copyright and intellectual property laws.

    | To know more about this, explore this article: AI and Copyright: The Ani vs. OpenAI Case

    FAQs

    1. What was the outcome of the Lay’s vs Jay’s trademark case?
      The Calcutta High Court cancelled the “Jay’s” trademark, ruling it phonetically and deceptively similar to Lay’s and adopted in bad faith.
    2. Why was Amazon fined ₹339.25 crore in the BHPC case?
      Amazon and its affiliates sold clothing with a logo deceptively similar to the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) emblem, misleading consumers and infringing on trademark and copyright.
    3. How can businesses prevent e-commerce trademark infringement?
      Service providers like TMWala help secure registrations, monitor potential infringements, and enforce IP rights on online platforms.
    4. What is the significance of the Sumitomo smell trademark?
      The Trade Marks Registry accepted an olfactory mark for tyres, recognizing a scientific seven-dimensional graphical representation as a valid non-traditional trademark.
    5. What are non-traditional trademarks?           
      These include sensory marks, product shapes, colors, sounds, or other distinctive elements beyond words or logos.
    6. How did the Hermès case strengthen luxury brand protection?
      The Delhi High Court declared the Birkin bag shape, Hermès word mark, and logos as well-known trademarks, protecting them against misuse even with minimal local sales.
    7. Can foreign companies like OpenAI be sued in India for copyright infringement?
      Yes, under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the company causes harm in India, Indian courts may assert jurisdiction.
    8. What is the legal concern in the ANI vs OpenAI case?
      It questions whether AI training on copyrighted content constitutes infringement, whether AI outputs are “original,” and whether Indian copyright law applies to AI-generated content.
    9. How does TMWala assist with AI-related copyright issues?
      TMWala helps secure copyright registrations, monitor unauthorized use, draft licensing agreements, and ensure compliance with emerging AI and IP laws.
    10. What is the overall trend in the 2025 Indian IP law?
      The year highlights stronger protection for phonetic, visual, non-traditional, well-known, and AI-related intellectual property, aligning India with global IP standards.

  • GST RATES ON GOLD

    Abstract:

    In this article, we will discuss the impact of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on gold in India, GST rates on gold, GST on old gold exchanges, GST on sovereign gold bonds, etc. As gold holds a significant place in Indian culture and investment portfolios, it becomes crucial to know how GST affects its pricing and taxation. The article talks about the tax implications on gold under GST, including how VAT is no more applicable, benefits on sovereign gold bonds, and GST calculation on gold purchases along with making charges. We will also highlight GST implications in the case of second-hand gold and the comparison with previous VAT principles.

    The article also examines GST-wielding the overall consequences on gold Prices in Indian Market. This guide is for consumers, traders and tax professionals who want to understand how gold in its different forms are taxed under GST. Understand what role compliance requirements, rate slabs & exemptions play in the gold market today.

    Introduction;

    Gold has always played a vital role in Indian culture and economy. In 2017, taxation for gold came under a paradigm shift with the implementation of the Goods and Service Tax (GST). This article explains GST rates on gold jewellery, impact of GST on gold prices, and how to calculate GST for gold purchases.

    Pre- GST tax structure on Gold

    Prior to the implementation of the GST regime in India, gold was being taxed under various heads such as VAT on gold, central excise and customs duty. The total tax rate was different by state, making prices inconsistent and compliance challenging, the report said.

    Buyers were charged approximately 1% VAT on goldbesides 1% excise duty (in some cases), 10% customs duty on imports. Some states also imposed octroi or entry tax, further burdening business.

    The pre-GST structure, therefore, needed reform,  paving the way for a unified system that would simplify taxation while increasing some level of visibility for both buyers and jewellers.

    GST Regime in India and How it Impacted Gold

    Since implementation of GST regime in India in July 2017, taxation of gold has been rationalised and placed under one umbrella. This replaced the previous multilevel tax system with a more simple and uniform approach across states.

    As per GST, gold attracts 3% GST on the value, and making charges on the gold jewellery are taxed at 5% separately. This two-rate system applies equally to new and customised gold ornaments.

    GST offered opportunities and responsibilities for jewellers. The system did recognise input tax credit on business purchases, but once the GST registration crossed a certain threshold (which again depended on turnover), meant constant filing, proper invoicing, proper accounting, etc.

    On the whole, GST contributed to formalisation of the sector, reduced tax evasion, and enhanced compliance. It also clarified long-held misconceptions about gold products, including prices and taxation, among consumers.

    GST Rates on Gold Jewellery

    Gold jewellery is taxed at a 3% standard rate on standard gold under the GST system. The making charges, which form of the labour or service component, would be separately chargeable at 5% GST if charged as separate item.

    This implies that when a customer purchases gold ornaments, the final bill is 3% GST on the value of gold and 5% on making charges, whether the jewels are ready-made or custom-designed. When charges of performance are included in the price, then the total value is taxed.

    While the tax rate did go up a little compared to the pre-GST era (which had only a 1% VAT on gold), the systematic and transparent manner under which GST works has made it easier for both buyers and sellers to know how much tax is being levied on gold jewellery.

    GST on old gold exchange

    The value on which the GST is payable when a customer is exchanging old gold jewellery for new ornaments is only the value of the new jewellery and not on the old gold he is giving in exchange. The jeweller passes the old gold received as a purchase and no GST is applied on old gold.

    For instance, if you trade in your old bangles worth ₹30,000 for a necklace worth ₹70,000, GST is applied only on the net ₹40,000 difference (plus any making charges, if applicable). This makes GST on old gold exchange relatively customer-friendly and aids in the recycling of gold in the industry.

    However, Jewellers must document these transactions appropriately to comply.

    How to Calculate GST for Gold?

    The GST on gold is charged on two components — the value of the gold itself and the making charge. Under the GST regime in India, a 3% tax is applied to gold purchases and a 5% tax applies to making charges, which is classified as a service.

    To understand the calculation, here is a basic step by step example:

    Say you are purchasing a gold necklace:

    Gold worth (weight × rate): ₹50,000

    Making charges: ₹5,000

    At present, GST is being computed in such a way:

    GST @3% on gold: ₹50,000 × 3% = ₹1,500

    GST @5% on making charges: ₹5,000 × 5% = ₹250

    Total price payable = 50000 + 5000 + 1500 + 250 = ₹56,750

    So whenever you are purchasing gold jewellery, keep in mind that the GST rates on gold jewellery comprise of 3% on the value of gold and 5% on making charges. Such transparency in breaking down the cost demystifies the tax element and allows customers to compare prices among jewellers.

    For consumers, it’s wise to ask for an itemized invoice that reflects this breakup. Correct calculation and billing are very important for jewellers for smooth GST compliance and also to claim input credit.

    Impact of GST on Gold Prices and Market Behaviour

    • A change in the Gold prices and the buying patterns was evident after the implementation of the GST. Under current GST regime, while gold jewellery is taxed at 3%, making charges attract 5% GST tax, overall tax incidence for the gold jewellery sector has gone up compared to earlier regime when only 1% VAT and 1% excise were applicable.
    • This period saw a slight increase in the gold values, especially during the early transition. On the other hand, some of the price increase effect was offset by increased transparency and standard pricing that makes it simpler for consumers to comprehend the final price they would have to pay for the product.
    • The market-wise, the enforcement of GST prompted several jewellers to get into the formal sector, particularly due to input credit benefits and mandatory invoicing. It also cracked down on unaccounted cash transactions that were once common in the gold trade.
    • The market gradually adjusted with consumers being more educated about the tax component and jewellers more compliant. While GST had a temporary effect on gold prices, its introduction did play a long-term role in formalizing and streamlining the industry.

    Tax Benefit on Sovereign Gold Bond

    Being an attractive instrument with tax benefits as per the present taxation regime, Sovereign Gold Bonds (SGBs) are superior to physical gold in every aspect. Launched by the Reserve Bank of India on behalf of the government, SGBs are certificates in the gold, and investors do not have to worry about storage or purity.

    The primary benefit is taxation, no GST will be imposed on the purchase of SGBs, since they are considered financial assets, not physical goods. They are therefore attractive compared to buying gold jewellery, which attracts GST on gold jewellery and making charges.

    Also, the income from SGBs (2.5% per annum) is liable to tax and capital gains on redemption (after 8 years) is tax-free (for individuals) in full. Such features make SGBs particularly attractive for long-term investors looking out for safety as well as tax-efficiency.

    To sum up, the tax saving in sovereign gold bond makes it economical when compared to buying gold in the physical form, particularly in a GST market.

    Conclusion

    Under GST, the gold industry in India got much clarity and structure. The GST rates on gold jewellery did raise the overall tax slightly but made for a simpler system that increased compliance and created trust in consumers. Important facets such as GST on old gold exchange, transparent invoicing and tax benefit on Sovereign Gold Bond have transformed the method of buying and selling gold.

    Buyers and dealers are now more vigilant and responsible. Learn About GST on Gold: For consumers, knowledge of how G.S.T. is computed on gold will help them make informed buying choices. For jewellers, forgoing to adjust with the GST regime in India provides long-term credibility in a closely knitted regulatory space.

    GST continues to play a pivotal role in the move towards a more organised, transparent and investor-friendly gold ecosystem as the market walks down the learning curve.

    References:

    https://www.axismaxlife.com/blog/tax-savings/gst-on-gold

    https://cleartax.in/s/gst-impact-on-gold

  • Conflict Between the Anti-Dissection Rule and the Law of Dominant Feature in Relation to the Trade Marks Act 1999

    In the Law of IPR, particularly in trademarks, two fundamental principles frequently come into conflict: the Anti-Dissection Rule and the Law of Dominant Feature. The Anti-Dissection Rule states that a trademark cannot be analyzed by breaking it into parts or segments. In contrast, the Law of Dominant Feature asserts that the most prominent part of a mark holds the greatest significance while assessing the degree of resemblance and possibility of confusion.

    This dispute is central to most of the trademark issues dealt with under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 because the courts have to find a middle ground in their assessment of a mark to ensure that it is not treated in a mechanical way with emphasis placed only on its prominent features. In this instance, these approaches are examined from the standpoint of their relationships with trademark jurisprudence.

    Anti-Dissection Rule and The Law of Dominant

    The Anti Dissection Rule in Trademarks

    A trademark should be assessed on how distinctly different it is from other marks and whether it has the potential to create confusion with them.

    The reason this rule was put in place is that consumers tend to view these emblems as a single entity rather than as individual parts. This principle makes it impossible for companies to have monopolistic control over commonly accepted words, or elements which, in actual fact, when looked at in isolation lack distinctiveness.

    According to the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a court must follow this rule for ascertaining similarity trademarks. Marks must always be regarded as a whole and not as a collection of parts. This is especially important in situations where the name contains some generic or descriptive portions along with some distinctive parts.

    The Law of Dominant Feature in Trademarks

    This approach is in sharp contrast to the previous insights as it specializes in one mark per view. The Law of dominant feature states that the most important or striking part of a trademark is the one that decides the level of distinctiveness and confusion. Courts tend to apply this approach where one part of a mark is so unique that it overshadows the remainder which is largely descriptive or generic.

    For example, where two marks contain one strikingly distinctive word or symbol, the dominant feature rule may determine that mark is identical, regardless of other differences in the marks. In addition to describing a mark, this rule is also vital where a mark includes several words, pictures or symbols, or words which are stylized.

    Clash of Two Principles in Trademark Law

    The controversy on anti-dissecting rule conflict with the law of dominant feature comes into play when court has to decide whether to evaluate the trademark as a whole or concentrate on its focal distinguishing features. This conflict is evident in multiple areas of trademark disputes under the trademark act of 1999.

    1. Composite Marks and Overall Impression

    When Anti-Dissection Rule is applied to marks containing multiple elements, differing results may occur compared to when employing the Dominant Feature Rule. In cases where a trademark has both generic and distinctive components, courts must decide whether the entire mark will be the primary focus or the focal point will be the most dominant portion.

    2. Phonetic and Visual Similarity

    Conceptually, these two branches have issues related to whether particular phonetic or visual similarities should be studied as one unit or through a lens of prominence. The division of the trademark required by the Anti-Dissection Rule takes the entire trademark into account, whereas the Law of Dominant Feature may give some prominence to a particular word or design which lends itself to be comparatively prominent.

    3. Trademark Enforcement and Protection

    Within the context of enforcement, Anti-Dissection Rule or restrictions on Trademarks is more favorable for brand owners and may be supported by the Dominant Feature approach, which brand owners may suggest protects crucial trademark elements from being utilized by competitive merchants. With the application of Anti-Dissection Rule, it is guaranteed that trademarks will not be unfairly fragmented to claim infringement over non-distinctive or non-specific words.

    4. Consumer Perception and Market Realities

    To what extend these principles diverge cannot be examined without a reference to consumers. Anti-Dissection Rule advocates the view that trademarks are put together as a whole, while those applying the Dominant Feature view admit that some features are more fundamental because of their greater prominence used in branding and advertising.

    Striking a Balance Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999

    Indian trademark law tends to deviate from principles with the attempt to balance both thorough consideration and important highlights through a case-by-case approach. The Hon’ble courts have time and again held that Rule of Anti-Dissection and Dominant Figure are not Anti-thesis to one another, rather, the two doctrines complement each other by providing a comprehensive judegement of deceptive similarlity. Factors that the courts examine include:

    • The distinctive nature of separable parts.
    • The possibility of confusion among consumers.
    • The primary overall mark impression.
    • The presence of common distinctive elements versus unique descriptive words.

    With regard to balance the protecting mark fairness courts have maintained the need for context ensuring that both principles does not form rigid application. Rather, both rules are applied depending on the nature of trademarks under contention.

    Landmark Cases Addressing This Conflict

    Several notable cases highlight the application of these conflicting principles:

    1. Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. – The Supreme Court ruled that marks must be compared as a whole, reinforcing the Anti-Dissection Rule.
    2. M/s South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc. – The court focused on the dominant element in a trademark dispute, emphasizing its impact on consumer perception.
    3. ITC Limited v. Nestle India Limited – The Delhi High Court analyzed both the holistic impression and dominant features of competing trademarks before reaching a decision.
    4. The dominant feature theory and the anti-dissection rule—dominated the legal struggle between PhonePe and BharatPe.  Claiming that the main and unique component of its trademark was the shared suffix “Pe,” PhonePe asserted that BharatPe’s usage of it would mislead consumers.  The court disagreed with this point of view, stressing instead that trademarks have to be evaluated overall, as per the anti-dissection rule, which prohibits isolating individual elements of a composite mark to assess similarity. The suffix “Pe,” derived from the Hindi word “पे” meaning “on,” was considered descriptive in nature and lacked inherent distinctiveness.  Rather, the court decided that the real differentiator was the more noticeable aspects, “Phone” and “Bharat” These elements were obviously different in phonetic, visual, and structural identity, so customer confusion was quite rare.  Moreover, the court reiterated that exclusive rights cannot be claimed over a common or descriptive element unless it has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning, which “Pe” had not. Consequently, PhonePe’s claims were dismissed, and the judgment underscored the importance of considering trademarks holistically rather than dissecting them into isolated, non-distinctive parts.

    Conclusion

    The interplay between the Anti-Dissection Rule and the Law of Dominant Feature in Indian trademark law under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 illustrates a critical legal challenge. While the Anti-Dissection Rule ensures trademarks are assessed in their entirety, the Law of Dominant Feature recognizes the practical reality that certain elements stand out more prominently in consumer perception.

    A balanced approach that considers both principles allows courts to provide fair rulings while protecting both brand owners and market competition. Addressing this conflict through a nuanced, case-specific analysis ensures that trademark law remains adaptable and effective in fostering brand protection and consumer clarity.

    Author Details: Aditya Krishna Gupta, 3rd year, BA LL.B. , Jiwaji University, Gwalior 

    References