VOICE TRADEMARKS IN THE AGE OF AI: PROTECTING SOUND, IDENTITY, AND BRAND VALUE

In India, the registration of a voice or sound mark requires that the sound be distinctive. Applicants must submit the sound in MP3 format (not exceeding 30 seconds) along with its graphical representation in the form of musical notation. While the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not expressly define sound marks, the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 provide a clear framework for their registration. Applications are filed using Form TM-A, accompanied by the MP3 recording and its notation. Well-known examples include the Nokia chime, Britannia’s four-bell sound, ICICI Bank’s jingle, and Netflix’s “Ta-Dum” sound.

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence capable of imitating voices; particularly those of well-known personalities, there is a growing need to safeguard such distinctive audio identifiers. In response to this emerging concern, U.S. pop star Taylor Swift has recently filed new trademark applications to protect both her voice and image. Two of these applications relate to “sound marks,” specifically the phrases “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” and “Hey, it’s Taylor.” Another filing seeks protection for a distinctive visual image of the artist holding a pink guitar with a black strap, wearing a multicolour bodysuit with silver accents and boots an appearance strongly associated with her recent performances.

Although the concept of protecting sound as a trademark is not new, it remains relatively uncommon. By securing registration for specific voice phrases, Swift may be able to take action not only against identical reproductions but also against imitations that are “confusingly similar,” which is a key standard under trademark law.

In conclusion, voice trademarks represent an evolving frontier in intellectual property protection, particularly in the age of advanced AI imitation. As technology continues to blur the lines between originality and replication, securing distinctive sound identities is becoming increasingly important. The proactive steps taken by artists like Taylor Swift highlight the growing significance of safeguarding voice and sound as valuable brand assets.

FROM SCALE TO SUBSTANCE: INDIA'S IP TRANSFORMATION SIGNALS ECONOMIC COMING OF AGE

 When India surpassed Japan to become the world's fourth-largest economy in 2025, crossing the $4.18 trillion threshold, it marked more than a statistical milestone. What makes this achievement significant is the transformation occurring beneath the surface, reflected most vividly in the nation's intellectual property landscape. For the first time in its post-independence history, India is not merely growing larger; it is growing smarter.

The convergence is striking. As GDP doubled from $2 trillion in 2014 to over $4 trillion today, India's patent-to-GDP ratio surged from 144 to 381. This signals a fundamental shift in how India creates value: indigenous innovation is now driving economic expansion, rather than simply following it.

The Numbers Tell a Different Story Now

India filed over 63,000 patent applications in 2024, securing its position as the world's sixth-largest filer. But composition matters more than count. Domestic filings now account for 61 percent of all applications, a historic reversal from 2013 when Indian residents filed barely a quarter. The 180 percent surge over five years represents the fastest patent growth among top-20 economies, with three consecutive years of double-digit expansion.

This is economic maturation in action. Innovation spreading beyond metros, with 45 percent of startups emerging from Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities. Sectors like automotive, electronics, AI, pharmaceuticals, and renewable energy driving both patent filings and GDP growth. The design sector witnessed 41.52 percent growth in 2024-25, while trademark filings exceeded 550,000, making India's office the second-largest repository worldwide with over 3.2 million active registrations.

When Courts Start Meaning It

Yet patents filed mean little without enforcement mechanisms that give them teeth. Here lies perhaps the most consequential transformation. In 2024 alone, Indian courts awarded over ₹460 crores approximately $55 million in just two major patent cases. The highest single award reached ₹244 crores in a telecommunications dispute, followed by ₹217 crores for antenna technology infringement. Five years ago, such awards would have been inconceivable.

The Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules 2022 changed litigation economics fundamentally. Courts now systematically consider lost profits, infringer gains, reasonable licensing fees, infringement duration, intent, and mitigation steps. This structured approach has transformed India into a serious patent enforcement venue rivaling European and United States standards.

Policy Architecture Supporting Growth

Government initiatives created the infrastructure enabling this surge. Make in India, Startup India, and Digital India forged a virtuous cycle where economic growth fuels innovation, which drives further expansion. The Startup Intellectual Property Protection scheme offers pro bono facilitation, while fee reductions reach 80 percent for startups, MSMEs, and educational institutions. Patent Office manpower nearly tripled, rising from 431 in 2014 to 1,433 in 2024.

IP Reforms 3.0 promises integration of advanced technologies AI, NFTs, blockchain—into intellectual property management. Digital filing now accounts for 95 percent of applications, streamlining processes that once deterred smaller innovators. The system is becoming genuinely accessible, not merely theoretically available.

What This Means for India's Trajectory

The significance extends beyond statistics. Patents in force rose from 76,556 in 2019 to 228,402 in 2024, six consecutive years of double-digit growth. Geographical Indications saw extraordinary 380 percent increases over five years, protecting cultural heritage while creating commercial value from traditional knowledge. Women inventors raised their share from 10.2 to 11.6 percent, contributing to more diverse innovation ecosystems.

India's 8.2 percent real GDP growth in the second quarter of fiscal 2025-26 makes it the fastest-growing major economy. Government projections indicate overtaking Germany by 2030, with GDP reaching $7.3 trillion. But achieving developed nation status by 2047 requires more than scale. It demands indigenous innovation capability that strong intellectual property systems both reflect and enable.

The Challenge of Sustaining Momentum

The transformation is real but incomplete. International forecasters project sustained growth above 6 percent through 2026, but maintaining this requires continuous innovation across sectors. Whether India can sustain this trajectory while navigating global economic uncertainties, technological disruptions, and domestic implementation challenges will determine if current momentum translates into lasting transformation.

For multinationals, India has matured into a predictable patent enforcement venue within the world's fourth-largest economy. For Indian companies and startups, the strengthened ecosystem provides confidence to invest in research knowing that patent rights receive serious judicial protection. The infrastructure is in place. The question now is execution at scale.

As India advances toward becoming a five-trillion-dollar economy and beyond, intellectual property stands as both enabler and evidence of economic maturation. The nation is evolving from innovation consumer to producer, fostering breakthroughs that position it as a leader shaping the global innovation economy. With economic heft and innovation prowess now aligned, India's next chapter depends on whether this convergence proves sustainable or fleeting.

---

PARLIAMENT AS A TRADEMARK (Q:PROHIBITED ??)

The Delhi High Court dealt with appeals transferred from the abolished IPAB challenging refusal of trademark applications for “PARLIAMENT” marks. The Registrar had rejected the marks under Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, citing the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The appellant argued that “PARLIAMENT” is a common noun used globally and not identical to “Indian Parliament” or its pictorial representation. Entry 17 of the Schedule of the Emblems and Names Act shows that the aforesaid prohibition is in respect of 'name of the Parliament or the Legislature of any State'. The prohibition is not in respect of the words 'PARLIAMENT' or 'LEGISLATURE' in itself. The word 'PARLIAMENT' is not unique to India as various other countries across the world such as Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, United Arab Emirates use the word 'PARLIAMENT' to refer to their legislative organs. appellant is not seeking to use and register the mark 'INDIAN PARLIAMENT' or 'PARLIAMENT OF INDIA' or even a pictorial representation of the Indian Parliament as a part of the subject marks. the mark 'PARLIAMENT'/ PARLIAMENT-formative marks are not prohibited under the provisions of the Emblems and Names Act and, consequently, do not contradict  Section 9(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The Court held that the Act prohibits only specific names like “Parliament of India,” not the generic word “PARLIAMENT.” Consequently, the refusals were set aside and the appeals allowed.

Case Title: Capital Ventures Pvt Ltd vs Registrar Of Trademarks on 29 April, 2025, Delhi High Court. (TM no 2736355 TM No 2511784)

 

Emblems and Names Act, 1950

The Act was enacted to prevent the improper use of certain names and emblems for commercial and professional purposes. It prohibits any person from using, without prior permission of the Central Government, specified names or emblems in connection with trade, business, calling, profession, patents, trademarks, or designs. The prohibited list, given in the Schedule, includes names and emblems of national importance such as the Parliament, Supreme Court, High Courts, United Nations, Gandhi, Nehru, Shivaji, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Ashoka Chakra, Dharma Chakra, Interpol, and buildings of important government institutions. Registrars of companies, trademarks, and designs must refuse registration of any name, trademark, or design violating the Act. The objective is to safeguard national institutions, symbols, and respected personalities from commercial exploitation or misuse. 

PATENT RIGHTS STRENGTHENED: DONG YANG WINS KEY APPEAL ON SIMPLE BUT NOVEL INVENTION "simple invention is patentable if it is novel, non-obvious, and addresses a technical problem with ingenuity."

 

In Dong Yang PC, Inc. v. Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 60/2024], the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Mini Pushkarna, emphasized that even a simple invention is patentable if it is novel, non-obvious, and addresses a technical problem with ingenuity.

The case concerned a Vertical Rotary Parking System designed to reduce noise through smoother motion, less friction, and fewer contact points. The Controller had rejected the patent application, stating it lacked inventive step and offered no technical advancement over prior art. The invention was dismissed as a mere workshop modification involving the reversal of male and female portions in the pull gear and suspension chain.

However, the Court disagreed, stating the Controller had not demonstrated how the invention lacked technical advancement or why it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Citing the Avery Dennison judgment, the Court highlighted that a key test for inventiveness is the time gap between prior art and the new invention. Here, despite the prior art being from the appellant, the absence of similar third-party innovations over time indicated non-obviousness.

The Court found that labeling the improvements as “mechanical” did not meet the legal threshold and the Controller’s reference to “common general knowledge” was vague and unsupported. It emphasized that simplicity is not a bar to patentability and that even minor changes can lead to a new invention if they solve a technical problem with ingenuity.

Finding the Controller’s order lacking proper analysis and justification, the Court held it unsustainable and directed the patent application to be re-examined.

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT: Trademark Victory for Veerji Malai Chaap Wale: Delhi HC Penalizes Imitator Food Joints

In a trademark infringement case, the Delhi High Court awarded ₹5 lakh in damages to the popular food chain Veerji Malai Chaap Wale. Justice Amit Bansal passed the order against five eateries that failed to appear in court, resulting in an ex parte decree and imposition of exemplary damages. The defendants, located in Delhi, Raipur, Uttar Pradesh, and Haridwar, were found using deceptively similar names such as VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE and VEERE DI MALAI CHAAP & KATHI KABAB, and were listed on platforms like Zomato and Swiggy. Each was ordered to pay ₹1 lakh. The Court held that the use of these names was a dishonest attempt to exploit the goodwill of Veerji Restaurant, misleading consumers and benefiting unfairly from its reputation. As the defendants filed no written statement, the Court accepted the plaintiff’s allegations as admitted and issued a decree accordingly.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI, CS(COMM)862/2023 with I.A. 24140/2023 and I.A. 11635/2025

PATENT

 

Tesla, Inc files new Trademark application for "TESLA ROBOTAXI" after setbacks with generic terms

 TESLA ROBOTAXI

Tesla is renewing its efforts to secure a trademark for its autonomous vehicle service by filing a new application for the term "Tesla Robotaxi." This move comes after previous attempts to trademark more generic names like "Robotaxi" and "Cybercab" were hindered by regulatory challenges.

Last month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) informed the company that its application for "Robotaxi" lacked sufficient specificity, noting that the term is widely used by other companies in the industry.

The latest trademark application for "Tesla Robotaxi" was filed on May 30, 2025, under US Serial Number: 99211111, with Tesla, Inc., a Texas-based corporation, listed as the owner.

Trademark Infringement: Even Brief Consumer Confusion is Enough, Rules Delhi High Court

In a significant ruling on trademark law, the Delhi High Court has held that even momentary confusion in the mind of a consumer is sufficient to establish trademark infringement under Indian law. The decision came in the case of Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr., where American sportswear company Under Armour, Inc. successfully restrained an Indian clothing brand from using the mark “AERO ARMOUR.”

The ruling, delivered by a division bench on May 23, 2025, pertains to trademark Class 25, which includes clothing, footwear, and headgear. The Court emphasized that the duration of consumer confusion is immaterial; even short-lived or initial confusion can fulfill the criteria for deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act 1999.

The confusion, albeit limited to the initial stage, is sufficient to satisfy the condition of deceptive similarity as contemplated under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act," the bench observed.

“Extension of Limitation” by Supreme Court of India in view of Covid-19 Virus

The Supreme court of India has taken suo moto cognizance in a petition for “Extension of Limitation” in view of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). 

In order to obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country, the Court ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order to be passed by this Court.

While pronouncing the order, the court exercised the power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declared that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities.

The court has also directed that this order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts in India for further communication to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction.

In view of this court’s order, it is likely that the Indian Patent Office and the Indian Trade Marks Registry issue specific notices clarifying automatic extension of time in respect of matters, such as filing of applications (including PCT filing), replying to office action, filing of any other documents in respect of application/opposition/rectification, hearings and in any other related matter, where there is prescribed deadline falling on March 15, 2020 and thereafter. This will bring relief not only to the applicant/opponent/petitioner/respondent and other interested parties in any proceeding but also to attorneys and agents in India and abroad. 

Indian Patent office launched Comprehensive e-filing facility

In an official function held on December 15, 2012, the Indian Patent office launches the facility of Comprehensive online filing. This newly launched facility by the Indian Patent office is a bold step towards a paperless virtual office in the future.

Though the Indian Patent office has first launched the e-filing services in the year 2007, such facility was limited only to filing of patent applications. However, the newly developed online facility has been integrated to file patent applications and other subsequent requests along with the prescribed fees through the electronic gateway. The service is aimed at simplifying the e-filing process and to eliminate transaction errors.

The launched on-line filing facility is a web based system which allows a dual way login through User Id or Digital signature. Now a user can comfortably own and manage personal folders in the Patent office environment. For this, the user simply needs a Digital signature and an internet banking account for e-filing.

According to the information revealed by the Patent office, there has been remarkable growth in the e-filing of application since the commencement of e-filing facility in the year 2007. Until the end of November 2012, it is estimated that about one-third of the patent applications filed in the Patent Office have been through the electronic means. Hence, the launch of the comprehensive e-filing facility is expected to enhance the confidence of applicants and patent attorneys and further augment the practice of filing patent applications through the electronic mode.

ONLINE FACILITY LAUNCHED TO CORRECT ERRORS IN THE DATABASE OF INDIAN TRADE MARKS REGISTRY

By virtue of a Public notice dated September 17, 2012, the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks of India (CGPDTM), launched an online tool for making request for correction of clerical errors in the records the Trade Marks Registry’s database. In order to attend to such request for correction, a link has been provided for in the official website of CGPDTM.

The notification provided by CGPDTM points that in case of any clerical error in the data entry of a pending application for registration of trade mark or in the records of Trade Marks Register in respect of a registered trade mark, the applicant/proprietor or their authorized agent may avail this facility and request for the desired correction through the online tool. However, such request for correction has to be on the basis of supporting documents, which is also required to be uploaded through that tool.

Once the request for correction has been made, the competent officer of the Trade Marks Registry will scrutinize such requests on the basis of the existing records and supporting documents uploaded by the applicant/proprietor/agents and in cases of genuine errors, such officer shall correct the relevant records.

The notification also clarifies that this online tool is meant only for the correction of clerical/typographical errors that have crept in during the data entry stage and not for the recordal of any change or amendment that has taken place during the course of prosecution of an application or grant of registration of a trade mark.

Roche Vs. Cipla : Court rules in favour of Cipla

In an infringement action initiated by F. Hoffman-La Roche Holding AG against generic drug company, Cipla Ltd for manufacturing and marketing the generic version of its patented anti-lung cancer drug Erlotinib Hydrochloride, the Delhi High Court on September 7, 2012 has held that Cipla’s drug, Erlocip, did not infringe the Roche’s patented drug, Tarceva. The court also said that Roche's patent over Tarceva is valid in India.

The 280 page decision pronounced by Justice Manmohan Singh is the outcome of the infringement action initiated by Roche in January 2008. The court observed that Cipla’s generic version drug was a polymorph B variant of Roche’s patented drug and that such drug has not infringed upon Roche’s patented drug. Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, allows patenting of inventions which are variants of a basic compound if such versions results in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance.

Roche's Tarceva is priced at Rs.1.40 lakh ($2,533) for a month's treatment, while Cipla's version cost about Rs.25,000, i.e., approximately six times cheaper for the same dosage.

Now, Roche has the option to challenge such decision as appeal to a division bench of the Delhi High Court.

Expansion of “Classification of Goods and Services” proposed

In a public notice dated August 16, 2012 the Registrar of Trade Marks has proposed to publish a detailed classification of goods and services for the purpose of registration of trade marks. The proposed publication is in accordance with Section 8 of the Indian Trade Marks Act which prescribes that the Registrar may publish in the prescribed manner, an alphabetical index of classification of goods and services.

At present, India follows the international classification of goods and services (NICE classification) for registration of trade mark. Section 7 (1) of the Indian Trade Marks Act 1999, provides that the classification of goods and services has to be, as far as may be, in accordance with the International Classification of goods and services. Further, in accordance with Section 7 (2), any question arising as to the class within which any goods or services falls shall be determined by the Registrar whose decision shall be final.

Through this public notice, the Registrar desires to include the goods and services of “Indian Origin” in the classification of goods and services. Therefore, the Registrar has requested advocates, attorneys and the general public to point out those goods and services of Indian origin which are not mentioned in the current edition of the international classification of goods and services. The Registrar has also requested to suggest to him the appropriate class of such goods and services of Indian origin.

The proposal by the Registrar to add goods and services of Indian origin to the international classification is a welcome step since such goods and services of Indian origin are not mentioned in the international (NICE) classification. Also, including those goods and services in the international classification shall eliminate any confusion in identifying the correct class of such goods and services while applying for and obtaining registration of trade marks.

Simplification of process of filing of PCT National Phase Applications in India

With effect from July 6, 2012 an applicant will not be required to file multiple copies of documents while filing a PCT National Phase application in India as the Indian Patent office will access such documents electronically from International Bureau (IB). This was notified by the Controller General in a public notice dated July 2, 2012. This has become possible since the Indian Patent office has in coordination with the IB of the World Intellectual Property Organization has acquired online access to the PCT International applications and related documents available with the IB. As a result of this development, the Indian Patent office will be able to utilize their valuable resources in a more efficient manner and minimize errors occurring due to manual data entry. However, this facility will be applicable only to those PCT National Phase applications entering India which do not claim priority of any other PCT National Phase application filed previously in India.

For clarifications, the Controller General has provided the following instructions:

(i)                 For filing a PCT National Phase application in India, which does not claim priority of any PCT National Phase application filed previously in India, the contents that shall be required in Form 2 are:

(a) Title of invention, (b) applicant’s name, nationality and address (c) Preamble to the description of the invention (columns 1, 2 and 3 respectively of Form 2), and (d) the last page of claims (first page, if the claims comprise of only one page) with date and signature.

(ii)              Other details, such as description of the invention, claims and abstract of invention are not required to be mentioned in Form 2. However, if such details are mentioned in the form, the Indian Patent office will ignore such details and instead consider the contents of details provided in the PCT International applications by accessing them from IB. Similarly, the columns 7 and 8 of Form 1 (i.e., Particulars for filing divisional application and particulars for filing Patent of Addition respectively) need not be provided for while filing a PCT application. It is also clarified that the Indian Patent office does not allow an applicant to amend the specification or the related documents before he actually enters National Phase in India.

(iii)            The documents to be filed by an applicant should exactly correspond with the updated information available on the records of IB on the date of filing of a PCT National Phase application in India. Such information must have been notified/published by the IB in accordance with the PCT and the regulations made thereunder. Any request pending before the IB shall be of no consequence and should not be reflected in the documents. If any such request is reflected in the documents, the information notified/published by IB shall prevail.

(iv)            The requirement of filing complete specification and abstract on Form 2 at the time of filing of a PCT National Phase application in India is being dispensed. However, where the international application was either not filed or has not been published in English language, the applicant shall be required to file a translation of such application in English language, duly verified by the applicant or the person duly authorized by him that the contents thereof are correct and complete.

(v)              The applicants will be required to comply with all other requirements in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 and rules framed thereunder.

 

The trade mark “VISCOF DP” is held deceptively similar to “VISCO”

The Indian Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in their order dated June 25, 2012 held that the mark VISCOF-DP is similar to the prior mark VISCO and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

In this case, the appellant (applicant) was M/s. Tauras Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad, who appealed against the order of Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks allowing the opposition and refusing an application for the mark VISCOF-DP in Class 5. The respondent (opponent), M/s. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai was the registered proprietor of the trade mark “VISCO” and claimed use of such mark since the year 1987. 

In their judgment, the IPAB observed that the goods in respect of the marks, VISCO and VISCOF DP being medicinal products, more care has to be taken to decide the case. The IPAB further observed that the appellant’s goods are for treatment of cough whereas the respondent’s goods are for treatment of gastric acidity. This means that the ailments to cure the disease for goods of the appellant and respondent are different.  If one is taken for the other it would definitely cause bad effects upon the user (patient). The IPAB also observes that it has been held by various courts that “if by wrong pronunciation one consumes a medicine for the other then the injury is serious which cannot be compensated in terms of money”. Moreover, in an application for registration the onus is on the applicant to prove that the mark deserves to be registered. In the present case, the appellant has failed to prove the same and therefore, the registration of the trade mark VISCOF DP has to be rejected under Section 11 of the Act (Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999). Accordingly, the Board (IPAB) dismissed the appeal.

NO AMENDMENT IN “USER DATE” OF A TRADE MARK APPLICATION

The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, (India) issued a circular dated June 8, 2012 by virtue of which no request for amendment of a trade mark application shall be allowed which seeks substantial alteration in an application for registration of trademark. Such alteration/amendment includes substantial amendment in the trade mark, proprietor details, specification of goods/services (except deletion of some of the existing items), statement as to the use of mark shall not be permitted. The circular also mentions that request for amendment in the proprietorship of a trade mark on the basis of valid assignment or transmission; amendment in address of an applicant or in the applicant's address for service; deletion or confinement of any item in the specification of goods/services, confinement/limitation in the area of sale of goods/rendering of services may be allowed.

In this regard, attention is drawn to the proviso of Rule 41 of the Indian Trade Marks Rules, 2002. Such proviso provides that “no such amendment shall be permitted which shall have the effect of substantially altering the trade mark applied for or substitute a new specification of goods or services not included in the application as filed”. It is clear that the proviso does not indicate any prohibition for amending the “user date” of a mark in a pending application.  Until the issue of the circular, it has been a common affair to allow amendment in the user date of an application by the Trade Marks Registrar. Such amendment includes amending the user date of an application from “proposed to be used” to a “particular user date” or vice versa. It was also common to amend the existing date of “use” of a mark in a pending application.

In view of the Controller General’s circular, an applicant has to be particularly careful with respect to the user date of a trade mark while filing an application, since no amendment with respect to the user date shall now be allowed.