In Short
Intellectual property (IP) law protects trademarks, copyrights, patents and trade secrets from infringement and unauthorised use. S&S Co. represents brand owners, inventors and content creators in registration, enforcement and litigation before the Delhi High Court, the Trade Marks Registry, and other IP forums, from our Noida, Delhi and Kolkata offices.
What This Practice Covers
India's IP framework spans the Trade Marks Act 1999, the Copyright Act 1957, the Patents Act 1970, and the Designs Act 2000, with the Delhi High Court's specialised IP Division playing an outsized role in shaping enforcement jurisprudence nationally — trademark owners regularly choose Delhi as the forum of first resort for infringement and passing-off actions.
Recent Delhi High Court rulings continue to refine this landscape: courts have clarified that trademark distinctiveness — not uniqueness — is the governing test for registration, that well-known marks enjoy broad cross-class protection, and that Standard Essential Patent holders can secure pro tem security from implementers even before a full merits hearing. For clients in Noida, Delhi NCR and Kolkata, this means fast-evolving, court-driven doctrine that a current IP advisor needs to track closely.
Forums We Appear Before
Delhi High Court — IP Division
Trade Marks Registry — Delhi & Kolkata
Copyright Office, New Delhi
Calcutta High Court — IP matters
Commercial Courts — IP-value suits
Customs (IP Rights Recordation) — anti-counterfeiting
Our Intellectual Property Services
- Trademark prosecution — clearance searches, filing, and responding to Registry objections and oppositions.
- Trademark & passing-off litigation — infringement suits, interim injunctions, and enforcement before the Delhi High Court.
- Copyright protection — registration advisory and infringement action against unauthorised reproduction or distribution.
- Patent litigation — infringement suits, validity challenges, and Standard Essential Patent / FRAND disputes.
- Anti-piracy & anti-counterfeiting raids — Local Commissioner-backed search-and-seizure actions against counterfeit goods.
- Domain name & online infringement — addressing trademark misuse in domain names and e-commerce listings.
- IP licensing & assignment — structuring and documenting licensing, franchising and technology transfer arrangements.
Enforcing an IP Right
-
Evidence Gathering
We collect evidence of infringement — purchases, screenshots, market surveys — to build the factual record.
-
Cease-and-Desist
Where appropriate, we issue a cease-and-desist notice as a first step, which can resolve infringement without litigation.
-
Suit & Interim Injunction
We file suit before the Delhi High Court or the relevant Commercial Court, seeking an interim injunction to halt ongoing infringement.
-
Local Commissioner / Anti-Piracy Action
In counterfeiting matters, we seek appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct search-and-seizure at infringing premises.
-
Trial & Final Relief
We carry the matter through trial to final injunction, damages, and costs, or negotiate a settlement where commercially sensible.
Illustrative Scenarios
The following are hypothetical, illustrative scenarios prepared for educational purposes. They are not descriptions of actual client matters, and no outcome is guaranteed in any specific case.
Illustrative Scenario
Brand Owner Challenging a Deceptively Similar Mark Filed in Delhi
A Noida-based FMCG brand discovers a competitor has filed a deceptively similar mark for related goods. An opposition before the Trade Marks Registry, backed by evidence of prior use and reputation, can block registration before it ever reaches the market — far cheaper than a later infringement suit.
Illustrative Scenario
Anti-Piracy Raid Against a Counterfeit Goods Seller in Kolkata
A branded goods manufacturer identifies a Kolkata market seller distributing counterfeit versions of its products. A Local Commissioner-backed raid, following a properly pleaded suit and interim injunction application, can seize counterfeit stock and build the evidentiary record for a permanent injunction and damages.
Illustrative Scenario
Software Company Discovering Unauthorised Use of Its Proprietary Code
A Noida-based software company discovers a former vendor has repurposed its proprietary code in a competing product. Copyright protection for software, combined with contractual confidentiality obligations from the original vendor agreement, gives the company parallel grounds — copyright infringement and breach of contract — to pursue an injunction and damages.
Illustrative Scenario
Trademark Opposition Filed Against a Similar Mark in a Related Business Category
A Kolkata food brand discovers a new entrant has filed for a similar-sounding mark in a related product category. A timely opposition before the Trade Marks Registry — supported by evidence of prior use, market reputation and likelihood of confusion — can block the conflicting registration before it reaches the market.
Notable Judgments
Delhi High Court2026
ADS Spirits v. Registrar of Trade Marks
'Uniqueness' Is Not the Test for Trademark Registration — Distinctiveness Under Section 9(1)(a) Suffices
The Delhi High Court held that a mark need not be wholly unique to qualify for registration under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 — distinctiveness in relation to the goods or services concerned is the governing standard. The Court also directed the Trade Marks Registry to pass reasoned, speaking orders when refusing applications rather than terse rejections.
Key Takeaway — Applicants wrongly refused registration on grounds of 'lack of uniqueness' now have clear Delhi HC authority to challenge such orders, and are entitled to a reasoned order explaining the refusal.
Delhi High CourtJul 2026
InterDigital Patent Holdings Inc. v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.
Delhi HC Clarifies Power to Direct Pro Tem Security in SEP & FRAND Disputes
The Court held that it may direct an implementer to deposit pro tem security in a complex Standard Essential Patent infringement suit even before a detailed examination of the merits, balancing the interests of SEP holders against those of implementers. The ruling is a significant contribution to India's developing FRAND jurisprudence in the telecommunications sector.
Key Takeaway — Implementers facing SEP infringement claims in India should be prepared for early-stage security deposit orders even before liability is finally determined.
Madras High CourtJul 2026
Novartis AG & Anr. v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.
Bolar Exception Is Narrowly Construed — Burden Is on the Party Invoking Section 107A
The Madras High Court held that the Bolar exception under Section 107A of the Patents Act is a narrowly construed statutory carve-out intended exclusively to facilitate regulatory approvals, not a general exemption for research or commercial exports. The evidentiary burden rests on the party invoking the exception to demonstrate a genuine regulatory purpose behind the impugned activity.
Key Takeaway — Generic manufacturers relying on Section 107A must maintain clear documentary proof that disputed activity was genuinely regulatory in purpose, not commercial in substance.
Supreme CourtFeb 2026
NCLT's Jurisdiction Under Section 60(5)(c) IBC — Trademark Ownership Dispute
NCLT Has No Power to Decide Trademark Ownership Disputes Without a Direct Insolvency Link
The Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to adjudicate trademark ownership disputes that lack a direct connection to the corporate debtor's insolvency proceedings, reaffirming that the NCLT's residuary jurisdiction is not a substitute for dedicated IP forums.
Key Takeaway — Parties to a trademark ownership dispute involving an insolvent entity should approach the appropriate IP forum unless the dispute is squarely tied to the CIRP itself.
See all Legal Updates for this practice area →
Our Approach to Intellectual Property
- Delhi High Court experience — direct familiarity with the specialised IP Division's practice and procedure.
- Anti-piracy litigation experience — practical experience running search-and-seizure actions against counterfeiters.
- Dual-city reach — enforcement coverage across Delhi NCR and Kolkata markets.
- Founders with 20 years combined experience across commercial litigation, arbitration and regulatory practice.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does trademark registration take in India?
Trademark registration typically takes 12-24 months from filing where there is no opposition, though contested applications with Registry objections or third-party oppositions can take considerably longer.
What is the difference between infringement and passing-off?
Infringement is a statutory remedy available to a registered trademark owner. Passing-off is a common-law remedy available even to an unregistered mark owner, based on established goodwill and reputation being misrepresented by a competitor.
Can I get an urgent injunction to stop ongoing infringement?
Yes — courts can grant ex parte or interim injunctions in clear cases of infringement, particularly where delay would cause irreparable harm to the brand owner's goodwill.
Does uniqueness matter for trademark registration?
No — the Delhi High Court has clarified that distinctiveness in relation to the goods or services concerned, not absolute uniqueness, is the governing test under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.