India

NAINAAZ IRANI Nainaaz is a 2014 graduate from Mumbai University, with a Master of Business Laws degree from National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Nainaaz has been with the firm for over 8 years and has over 11 years of experience in real estate. Nainaaz advises domestic and international clients on complex real estate transactions across India. In addition to conventional real estate matters, including title due diligence and transaction documentation, her practice encompasses private equity investments in commercial real estate, where she assists clients on structuring, documentation and execution. Her expertise also extends to the area of private client practice.   ROHINI JAISWAL Rohini is a 2015 graduate from the University of Nagpur, with an LLM in International Commercial Arbitration and Dispute Resolution from National University of Singapore. Rohini has been with the firm for over 7 years. She has more than 10 years of experience in civil and commercial litigation with particular focus on commercial contracts, white-collar crime, and labor, and she advises and represents clients in both institutional and ad hoc international and domestic arbitrations. She has also advised and acted for clients in disputes arising from matters relating to town planning and environmental laws, regulatory actions and disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct, constitutional and public interest litigations, company law, insolvency and bankruptcy, testamentary proceedings, and intellectual property.

Anand and Anand secures favourable order protecting rights in BRIDGESTONE, a recognised well-known trademark. New Delhi, May 21, 2026: Anand and Anand has secured a significant victory for Bridgestone Corporation before the Trade Marks Registry, Delhi, which has refused registration of the mark ‘TRI BIGSTONEPUNCTURE’ (label) in Class 12 after finding it deceptively similar to the globally recognised BRIDGESTONE trademark. In a detailed order, the Registrar of Trade Marks upheld Bridgestone’s opposition and concluded that the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The Registry observed that the dominant element “BIGSTONE” appeared to have been derived from BRIDGESTONE by merely dropping certain letters and held that the additional elements in the applicant’s mark were insufficient to distinguish it from Bridgestone’s well-known mark. The Registry further found that the competing marks were visually, structurally and phonetically similar, and reiterated the settled principle that where the essential feature of a prior trademark has been adopted, the presence of additional matter does not dispel the likelihood of confusion. Importantly, the Registrar rejected the applicant’s defence of honest adoption and held that there was no satisfactory explanation for the adoption of the impugned mark. The order records that the adoption appeared unfair and mala fide, reinforcing the protection available to established and reputed brands against attempts to appropriate their goodwill. The applicant’s claim of use was also rejected, with the Registry holding that the evidence on record was insufficient to establish the claimed user. In addition, the applicant’s argument that its goods were distinct from those of Bridgestone was not accepted. The Registry held that the goods shared a common consumer base and were likely to create confusion in the marketplace. The order also recognises Bridgestone’s extensive reputation and prior rights in the BRIDGESTONE mark, noting its inclusion in the Registrar’s list of well-known trademarks. The decision underscores the increasing willingness of Indian trademark authorities to scrutinise attempts to adopt marks that closely mimic reputed brands and serves as a reminder that minor textual variations will not insulate an applicant from findings of deceptive similarity where the overall commercial impression remains closely associated with a prior mark. Safir Anand, Head of Trademarks, Commercial and Corporate IP at Anand and Anand, said: “This decision is a strong reaffirmation of the principle that goodwill built over decades cannot be appropriated through cosmetic alterations or clever misspellings. The Registry has rightly recognised that consumer perception remains central to trademark protection and that well-known marks must receive meaningful protection against attempts to ride on their reputation.” The matter was handled by Safir Anand along with Twinky Rampal and Vaishali Sharma from Anand and Anand. About Anand and Anand Anand and Anand is one of India’s leading intellectual property law firms with offices in Delhi NCR, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata and Bengaluru. The firm advises and represents clients across patents, trademarks, copyrights, designs, litigation, enforcement and allied areas of intellectual property law as also corporate and commercial laws. For over a century, Anand and Anand has been at the forefront of protecting innovation, brands and creative assets for domestic and international clients.

Lakshmidevi Somanath*   The Supreme Court of India’s 2025 decision in K. Mangayarkarasi and Anr v. N. J. Sundaresan marks an important turn in Indian arbitration jurisprudence and delimits, for the first time, what constitutes the permissibility and the scope of arbitration within the Indian legal order. [1] The case is regarding an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, within which a trademark-related query is embedded. A close reading of the judgment suggests that there is a wider judicial intent. The Court leans towards allowing the settlement of property-related disputes through private arbitral tribunals rather than by the courts themselves. The judgment also reveals a judicial willingness to admit arbitral involvement in deciding on the veracity of documents in intellectual property cases in India. The Mangayarkarasi judgment thus becomes an important indicator of how far the Supreme Court of India is willing to go to enhance arbitration as a dispute resolving mode in India.   A Familiar Narrative of Disputes   The facts involve a familiar scenario - a family business develops into a valuable brand, the relationships among the stakeholders break down, and disputed documents come to light with accusations of forged signatures. Claims of trademark infringement are joined by complaints about the misappropriation of a disputed brand. The parties filing the dispute invoke arbitration based on contract, while opposing parties argue that issues over trademark rights are public in nature and should be litigated in court. The trial court and High Court reviewed the issue and concluded that a dispute of this character requires judicial resolution. The Supreme Court however, aligns with the contract scheme, and holds that the correct forum is arbitration. It therefore held that the veracity of the forged documents and the trademark rights that emanate from this document, are questions that are to be decided in the arbitration. The reasoning of the Court focuses on the dominant question of the contracts between the parties, holding that they are so central to the dispute, that resort to the particular statutory regime applicable to trademarks is beside the point. In this respect, the Court adopts contract-based analysis as superior to the application of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.   Doctrinal Lineage and Judicial Momentum   Mangayarkarasi thus finds its place in a larger pro-arbitration trend in Indian jurisprudence. The structure of the ratio relies on the lexicon of in rem and in personam rights as enunciated in Booz Allen Hamilton (2011)[2] and other decisions since Ayyasamy Palayappan (2016)[3] refined the fraud exception, and Vidya Drolia (2020)[4] reconstituted the arbitrability analysis through the rubric of minimal judicial intervention. Mangayarkarasi takes these doctrinal trends to their logical conclusion by applying them without reservation to patent and copyright disputes. The tenor of the combined lessons is that most disputes are arbitrable, though with some exceptions. The party that resists arbitration must establish sufficient cause, as emphasized once again in Mangayarkarasi.   From the perspective of the institution, this demonstrates the predilection of courts for speed, specialty, and finality. All these are preferences nurtured by commercial parties and increasingly adopted by the courts. The docket pressures of courts and the need to conserve judicial resources themselves enhance acceptance of arbitration to alleviate congestion. The Mangayarkarasi ruling supports such a practical impulse, supplementing the emergent view of arbitration as a preferred route for resolving certain classes of disputes, including those involving intricate intellectual property agreements.   This development signals a methodological shift in how trademark rights are conceptualized under Indian law. The Court in this judgment, looks at trademarks through a perspective that emphasizes contractual arrangements over public regulative concerns. In Mangayarkarasi, it has approached the dispute regarding trademark as one arising essentially from private agreements rather than issues of public law or market regulation. When framed so, arbitration becomes the natural mechanism for resolving such disputes. This reflects the larger retreat from expansive public law considerations toward contract-centric reasoning. In that sense, Mangayarkarasi represents a sea change in the way trademark rights are treated under Indian law.   Rights in Rem and the Fragility of the Doctrinal Architecture   The Court draws an analytical line between rights in rem and rights in personam. This binary choice conceals the nature of rights in rem and rights in personam, particularly in areas, such as the law of trademarks, which combines public-regulatory and private-contractual elements. Trademarks are neither purely proprietary nor purely contractual; they are public signs that affect competition and consumer choice but are also grounded on private contracts, licenses, and assignments. When a tribunal determines title or other rights to a trademark, the impact ramifies beyond the parties, with potential consequences for market practices as well as licensing arrangements, throughout supply chains, distributors, and licensees. The Court descales those wider implications in its reasoning, making the arbitral outcome an issue of private concern rather than an event with public consequence.   One important implication of Mangayarkarasi involves the transition of contract-based reasoning into the domain of intellectual property. Private settlements and agreements are, of course, essential to IP transactions, ranging from licensing to franchising, co-branding, and assignments. Yet such arrangements do not exhaust the legal dimensions of ownership and market regulation. Mangayarkarasi hence raises important questions with respect to how far contractual mechanisms can substitute for or reshape the underlying rights and protections accorded by trademark law.   Intellectual property transactions perforce involve contractual terms—licensing, franchising, co-branding, and assignments—that frequently carry arbitration clauses. Enforcing such clauses is, of course, legitimate and adds predictability and efficiency. The flip side, however, relates to whether arbitration would redefine the substantive rights imbued in those contracts and, by implication, affect market conduct and ownership determinations beyond the immediate dispute. Mangayarkarasi foregrounds this tension by suggesting a contractual primacy that, in practice, may affect the interpretation and scope of trademark rights.   The Court takes a traditional view of fraud, restricting equality of treatment to cases of gross or pervasive fraud, or to cases involving governmental agencies or other large-scale criminal enterprises. Forgery in a trademark assignment implicates basic issues of ownership and interdiction of unauthorized sales, and referring such issues to private arbitral tribunals involves the delegation of an important aspect of governmental power.   Comparative Glimpses and Global Context   A global overview confirms that India is not alone in confronting the interplay between intellectual property and arbitration. Although contract questions may be arbitrable, jurisdictions with civil-law traditions generally treat trademark disputes as unsuitable for arbitration. Public authorities retain ownership and regulatory oversight in matters affecting the market, and arbitral decisions typically cannot alter foundational IP rights. In Germany, private settlements are permissible for property-related disputes provided they do not modify essential IP rights or public records. France welcomes arbitration for contractual disagreements but reserves courts’ jurisdiction over questions concerning trademark validity and public-interest considerations. In common-law jurisdictions such as the United States, intellectual property arbitration is recognized, yet courts retain ultimate authority over the validity of rights, preserving a delineation between private adjudication and public law. Thus, Mangayarkarasi represents a unique articulation of the position taken by India - relative tolerance for arbitration in the context of IP disputes, marked by an impetus toward speed and efficiency perhaps at the cost of safeguards under public law. What emerges is a pragmatic approach that makes use of arbitration as the means to reduce court congestion, but at the same time invites prudent reflection on the limits of arbitral authority within the context of intellectual property.   Conclusion   The Mangayarkarasi decision was a landmark development for Indian arbitration, consolidating its utility and signaling, to a certain extent, alignment with international practices. However, the decision also brings to the forefront, unresolved questions as to the public-law dimension of IP disputes. It also signals larger ramifications of arbitration for trademark governance and market integrity. Mangayarkarasi illustrates the trajectory of the expansion of arbitration but also signals conceptual and practical limits that may require continuing adjustment. The ultimate test will lie in how the courts balance arbitral determinations in trademark cases against the interests of non-consenting parties and also against the broader regime of public law.   *Lakshmidevi Somanath is Partner – Litigation & Strategy at Anand and Anand, India. She formerly served in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, GoI as a Member Judge. [1] K. Mangayarkarasi & Anr. v. N.J. Sundaresan & Anr., 2025 INSC 687 [2] Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532. [3] A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386. [4] Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1.

DMD Advocates advised the founders of Rabyte on the acquisition of a majority stake in Rabyte by Hakuto Co., Ltd., a Japanese company listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Rabyte is engaged in the franchised distribution of semiconductors and electronic components across Asia, along with value-added services supporting such distribution. Hakuto’s focus is on growing its electronic components and semiconductor distribution business in the emerging markets. In this context, Rabyte’s business aligns perfectly with Hakuto’s future strategy. Hakuto & Rabyte intend to utilize each other’s existing geographic presence to expand their customer base and further penetrate Southeast Asia, Europe, ANZ and North American markets, which will eventually broaden Hakuto’s & Rabyte’s customer presence into diversified geographies globally. The investment is considered one of the measures to enhance the medium- to long-term corporate value of the Hakuto group. DMD assisted with transaction structuring, as well as the drafting, negotiation, and finalisation of the transaction documents. The transaction was led by Rashi Dhir (Senior Partner & Head of Corporate), along with Tarinee Sudan (Partner), Shubhangi Bhatnagar (Principal Associate), Arnav Mithal (Associate), Sarvagya Shankar (Associate), and Jasmine Brar (Associate). Rahul Sateeja (Partner) and Vikrant A. Maheshwari (Principal Associate) advised Rabyte from an Indian tax perspective.