Awards and Recognitions

The Start-up Route Through the Patent Office: Concessions, the Fast Lane, and What the Data Shows

By Lucy Rana and Renu Bala

A distinct lane for start-ups The Patent Office’s statistics are reported by applicant category — natural persons, start-ups, small entities, educational institutions, and others — and start-ups have been a recognised category for several years. Two features of that status matter most in practice: the fee scale and the examination timeline. Recognised start-ups are entitled to the concessional (lower) scale of official fees, and they were among the first classes of applicant eligible for expedited examination. The point of both features is the same: to lower the cost and shorten the time of securing patent rights for applicants who are, by definition, early-stage and capital-constrained. For a hardware or deep-tech venture, the ability to move an application towards grant on a compressed timeline can be material to how the underlying innovation is protected and how the business is perceived by counterparties. Concessional fees lower the cost of entry; expedited examination lowers the time to a decision. Together they define the start-up route through the Patent Office. The expedited route is where the timeline advantage is concentrated. Introduced initially for start-ups and certain PCT-linked applicants, and expanded from September 2019 to additional categories, it has drawn steadily rising use. According to the Annual Report 2024-25, total requests for expedited examination rose as follows: Nokia Corporation Year Expedited requests filed 2020-21 1,566 2021-22 2,513 2022-23 3,570 2023-24 5,130 2024-25 7,154   The Office states that, for expedited applications, grant or final disposal is achieved in the majority of cases within an average of about one year from the request — against the several years the normal route can take. For an early-stage company, that difference is the practical substance of the start-up route. On cost, recognised start-ups (like small entities, natural persons and educational institutions) file on the concessional fee scale rather than the higher scale applicable to large entities, and the Rules also provide, in defined circumstances, for refund of a portion of the examination fee. The specific fee amounts and any percentage concessions are set out in the official fee schedule under the Patents Rules and are periodically revised; because precise figures should be taken from the current official schedule rather than from secondary summaries, they are not reproduced here. What the framework establishes clearly is a two-tier cost structure that favours the categories into which most start-ups fall. Read together, the fee concessions and the expedited route make the Indian patent system materially more navigable for early-stage innovators than the headline timelines for the ordinary route would suggest — a structural feature of the system rather than a temporary incentive. Source for figures: CGPDTM Annual Report 2024-25 (Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Geographical Indications). a Two principal ones: concessional (lower) official fees, and eligibility for expedited examination, which compresses the timeline to grant or final disposal. a The Office reports that, for expedited applications, grant or final disposal is achieved in most cases within an average of about one year of the request, compared with several years on the normal route. a Start-ups file on the concessional fee scale under the Patents Rules. The precise amounts and concessions are set out in the official fee schedule, which is periodically revised; current figures should be taken from that schedule rather than from secondary summaries. a Yes. Requests for expedited examination rose from 1556 in 2020-21 to 7,154 in 2024-25, according to the CGPDTM Annual Report 2024-25.

India’s Patent Surge, in the Office’s Own Numbers: What the 2024-25 Data Shows

By Lucy Rana and Renu Bala

The totals, and the five-year climb The direction of travel in Indian patenting is unambiguous. According to the Office’s Annual Report 2024-25, total patent application filings reached 110,375, an increase of about 19.75% over 2023-24. Set against the recent past, the climb is steep and sustained: Nokia Corporation Year Applications filed 2020-21 58,503 2021-22 66,440 2022-23 82,811 2023-24 92,168 2024-25 110,375   Crossing the one-lakh mark in a single year is a milestone, but the more structurally significant shift lies beneath the total. The composition of filings has changed. Domestic applications rose to 68,201 in 2024-25 — 61.79% of the total — up from 55.96% the previous year, a 32.23% year-on-year increase in Indian filings. Foreign filings, at 42,174, grew far more modestly (about 3.89%). The growth in Indian patenting is, in other words, being driven principally by Indian applicants rather than by inbound filings, which points to deepening domestic research and development activity. Tamil Nadu led among states by ordinary applications filed by Indian applicants, followed by Karnataka and Maharashtra. The surge is increasingly home-grown. Domestic filings now make up almost 62% of the total, and are growing many times faster than foreign filings. On fields of invention, the report records growth across almost every area, with particular strength in Computer Science & Electronics, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical, Bio-Medical and Communication. These are the categories the Office itself uses. Popular commentary often frames India’s surge in terms of clean-tech, electric vehicles and the Internet of Things; while those technologies plainly sit within the broader electronics, communication and mechanical fields that are growing, the Annual Report does not report filings under those specific sectoral labels. Readers seeking figures for named emerging sectors would need to look to sector-specific or international datasets; what the Office’s data supports is the strength of the wider fields within which such technologies fall. The internationalisation of Indian innovation is also visible. PCT international applications filed by Indian applicants through the Indian receiving office rose from 964 in 2020-21 to 2,600 in 2024-25, with legal entities accounting for the bulk of the most recent year’s growth — a sign that Indian enterprises are increasingly seeking protection beyond the home market. As of 1 April 2025, the number of patents in force stood at 230,480. Source for figures: CGPDTM Annual Report 2024-25 (Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Geographical Indications). a 110,375 applications were filed, an increase of about 19.75% over the previous year, according to the CGPDTM Annual Report 2024-25. a Yes. Domestic filings reached 68,201 in 2024-25 — 61.79% of the total — up from 55.96% the year before, and growing far faster than foreign filings. a The Annual Report records growth in fields such as Computer Science & Electronics, Communication, Mechanical, Chemical and Bio-Medical, but it does not report filings under sector labels like clean-tech, EV or IoT. Those technologies fall within the broader fields, but named-sector figures would require other datasets. a PCT international applications filed by Indian applicants through the Indian receiving office rose from 964 to 2,600 over five years, indicating growing cross-border protection by Indian enterprises.

Backlog, Bottleneck and the Fast Lane: What the Latest Patent Office Data Says About Processing Times in India

By Lucy Rana and Renu Bala

A record year, then a normalisation The headline improvement in Indian patent processing is real, but it is best understood as a step-change followed by consolidation rather than a smooth downward line. According to the Office’s Annual Report 2024-25, a substantive internal reorganisation in 2023 promoted nearly 370 examiners to the rank of controller, and this contributed to a record final disposal of roughly 1.26 lakh patent applications in 2023-24, including the grant of over one lakh patents. That was an exceptional clearance year. The 2024-25 figures return to a more typical level. The number of patents granted in 2024-25 was 33,504, which the report records as a decrease of about 67.49% from the 103,057 granted in the record preceding year. The Office is candid that the same reorganisation, coupled with delayed recruitment of new examiners owing to legal hurdles, produced increased pendency at the first-examination stage. In other words, a burst of capacity cleared a backlog of decisions, but sustaining throughput depends on replenishing examiner strength — hence the reported recruitment of 550 new Examiners of Patents. The improvement is genuine; the trajectory is not a straight line. A record clearance year was followed by a normalisation and a fresh pendency pressure at first examination. For applicants weighing timelines, the single most consequential mechanism is expedited examination. Introduced for a limited set of applicants and expanded from September 2019 to further categories — including small entities, female applicants, government departments and bodies, and applications filed through the Patent Prosecution Highway — it has seen steadily rising uptake. Requests for expedited examination rose from 1566 in 2020-21 to 7,154 in 2024-25. The report’s own characterisation is the key data point for anyone planning around grant timelines: for applications on the expedited route, grant or final disposal is, in the majority of cases, achieved within an average of about one year from the date of the request — compared with the period of several years that the normal examination route can require. That is the accurate version of the “years to months” narrative: not a blanket reduction across all applications, but a materially faster track available to those who qualify and elect it. Read together, the figures point to a system that has expanded capacity and built a credible fast lane, while still managing cyclical pendency at the examination stage. Several observations follow from the data, offered as analysis rather than as advice on any particular filing: Route selection affects timeline more than almost anything else. The gap between the expedited average of about one year and the normal route’s several years is the largest single lever in the published data. Eligibility for the fast lane is category-driven. The expanded categories mean many Indian applicants — start-ups, small entities, educational institutions, and others — fall within an expedited-eligible class. Pendency is cyclical, not resolved. The Office’s own note of renewed first-stage pendency is a reminder that headline disposal figures in any one year may reflect capacity events rather than a permanent new baseline. Source for figures: CGPDTM Annual Report 2024-25 (Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Geographical Indications). a The accurate position, on the Office’s own figures, is that the expedited-examination route achieves grant or final disposal within an average of about one year in most cases, against several years on the normal route. It is a faster track for eligible applicants rather than a blanket reduction for all applications. a 2023-24 was a record clearance year (over one lakh grants) driven by an internal reorganisation. Grants in 2024-25 stood at 33,504, a normalisation from that peak, and the Office noted increased first-stage pendency linked to delayed examiner recruitment. a The route was initially available to Start-ups and to applicants filing National phase applications where the Indian Patent Office had been selected as ISA/IPEA for the corresponding PCT international application. In September 2019, this route was extended to include 8 additional categories of applicants: small entities, female applicants, government departments,  Institutions established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, that are owned or controlled by the Government, Government companies, institutions wholly or substantially financed by the Government, and applications filed under the Patent Prosecution Highway. a The Annual Report 2024-25 records recruitment of 550 new Examiners of Patents to strengthen examination capacity.

Lookalikes on the Shelf: Where Brand Protection Meets Food-Safety Regulation in India

By Lucy Rana and Ananyaa Banerjee

Two harms, two regimes When a new product appears on the shelf dressed to resemble an established brand, it can cause two different kinds of harm, and Indian law addresses them through two different bodies of rule. The first harm is to the brand owner and to consumers who are misled as to source — the domain of trade mark law and the tort of passing off. The second is to consumers’ broader interests in accurate information and safe food — the domain of food-safety and consumer-protection regulation. A single lookalike can implicate both at once, which is why these disputes often sit at the intersection of the two regimes. A lookalike pack asks two questions at once: whose brand is this, and is the consumer being accurately and safely informed? Indian law answers them through different regimes. Brand identity in packaging is protected in two ways. A registered trade mark is protected against use of identical or deceptively similar marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and courts have read that protection to extend to packaging and get-up. Even without registration, the common-law action of passing off protects the goodwill embodied in a product’s distinctive “trade dress” — its overall appearance, colour scheme, layout and presentation — against misrepresentation that is likely to deceive. The governing test is long settled. In Parle Products v. J.P. & Co. (1972), the Supreme Court held that competing packaging is to be judged by its overall impression rather than by placing the two side by side and hunting for differences, from the standpoint of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Later decisions built on this: the deceptive-similarity factors elaborated in the Cadila line of cases, the protection of distinctive colour combinations, and the recognition that get-up and presentation can be as valuable as the name itself. More recent rulings have reinforced that, for fast-moving consumer goods and food in particular — where purchases are quick, visual and made by consumers of varying literacy — a relatively low threshold of deceptive similarity applies, and that copying the essential features of a trade dress while making minor cosmetic changes (“smart copying”) does not escape liability. Running alongside the IP analysis is a regulatory regime with a different purpose. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, administered by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), together with the labelling and display regulations made under it, governs how packaged food must be labelled — mandatory declarations, accurate descriptions, and the prohibition of misleading representations. Consumer-protection law, including the framework overseen by the Central Consumer Protection Authority, separately addresses misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices. These rules do not exist to allocate brand ownership; they exist to ensure that consumers are accurately informed and not deceived or endangered. The two regimes are therefore complementary rather than interchangeable. A lookalike may be actionable as passing off or trade mark infringement because it misappropriates another’s goodwill, and separately relevant to the food-safety and consumer framework because it may mislead consumers as to the nature, quality or origin of what they are buying. For businesses — both established brand owners and new entrants — the practical point is that packaging decisions in the food sector are assessed against both bodies of law at once, and that the visual imitation of a familiar pack carries exposure on more than one front. a Yes. The common-law action of passing off protects the goodwill in a product’s distinctive trade dress — its overall get-up, colour scheme and presentation — against misrepresentation likely to deceive, independently of registration. a By the overall impression test set out in Parle Products v. J.P. & Co. (1972): the packaging is judged as a whole, from the perspective of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, rather than by cataloguing minor differences. a Not necessarily. Courts have held that copying the essential features of a trade dress while making cosmetic changes (“smart copying”) is still copying, and that the presence of a house mark does not by itself dispel confusion. a The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and FSSAI’s labelling regulations govern accurate labelling and prohibit misleading representations. They address consumer information and food safety, which is a different question from brand ownership — so a lookalike can raise both IP and food-safety issues.

The Moving Target: How Indian Courts Built the Dynamic Injunction to Fight Digital and Broadcast Piracy

By Lucy Rana and Ananyaa Banerjee

The hydra problem Online piracy has a structural feature that ordinary injunctions struggle with: when one infringing website is blocked, mirror sites, redirect links and slightly altered domain names appear almost immediately, hosting the same content. Requiring a rights holder to file fresh proceedings for each new address would make enforcement a game of whac-a-mole that the infringer always wins. The dynamic injunction was the Indian judiciary’s answer to that problem. In UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337X.to & Ors. (2019), the Delhi High Court — drawing on a Singapore precedent — held that where a website is established as a “flagrantly infringing online location,” a single order can be extended to its mirror, redirect and alphanumeric variants without the rights holder returning to court for a fresh adjudication each time. The Court set out non-exhaustive factors for identifying such rogue websites (masked registrant details, absence of traceable contact information, content overwhelmingly comprising unlicensed works, and the like) and created a mechanism by which a rights holder could apply to the Joint Registrar, on affidavit, to extend an existing injunction to newly discovered variants, with directions to internet service providers and the relevant authorities to implement blocking. The insight of the dynamic injunction is procedural: static orders cannot contain continuously evasive infringement, so the order itself must be able to move. Two lines of expansion followed. First, the tool moved beyond film catalogues to live events, where the value of content is almost entirely in the moment of broadcast. Courts have granted anticipatory relief ahead of major tournaments, and in the context of premier cricket events have directed real-time blocking of rogue streams, recognising that waiting for conventional timelines would render broadcasting rights worthless. Second, in Universal City Studios v. Dotmovies.baby (2023), the Court developed the “dynamic+” injunction to protect works not yet released, so that a rights holder is not left exposed in the window before a title even reaches the market. The principle has also been extended beyond copyright to trademark misuse through fraudulent websites. Aggressive as the remedy is, the courts have been alert to its risks, and a 2026 decision drew an important line. In Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to, the Delhi High Court granted a dynamic injunction against a set of rogue websites but held that the final determination of whether a newly discovered site is genuinely infringing must rest with the court — not be delegated to internet service providers, domain registrars or the plaintiffs acting on their own. Intermediaries can technically verify that a site is a mirror of a blocked one; they cannot be handed the adjudicatory power to decide “rogue” status. Blocking of new sites remains a provisional measure subject to continued judicial oversight. That calibration matters. It preserves the effectiveness of the dynamic injunction while keeping the ultimate judgment about infringement where it belongs with the court. For rights holders in film, broadcasting, over-the-top streaming and live sport, the practical significance is that Indian courts have built a genuinely responsive enforcement tool, but one that is being refined with attention to due process and the position of the intermediaries asked to give it effect. a It is a court order, first developed in India in UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337X.to (2019), that can be extended to mirror, redirect and variant versions of a blocked rogue website without the rights holder having to file a fresh suit each time. a Developed in Universal City Studios v. Dotmovies.baby (2023), it extends protection to works that have not yet been released, so a rights holder is protected in the window before a title reaches the market. a Courts have granted anticipatory and real-time blocking relief ahead of and during major sporting events, recognising that the value of live content is in the moment of broadcast and that conventional timelines would render broadcasting rights ineffective. a In Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to (2026), the Delhi High Court held that the final determination rests with the court. Intermediaries can technically verify that a site is a mirror, but cannot be delegated the power to adjudicate rogue status.

Beyond the Logo: The Legal Reality of Sound, Motion and Smell Marks in India

By Lucy Rana and Ananyaa Banerjee

The two gatekeepers Indian trade mark law is, in principle, hospitable to non-traditional marks. The definition of “mark” in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 extends to the shape of goods, their packaging and combinations of colours, and the statute does not confine protection to words and logos. In practice, however, two requirements determine whether a sensory sign can actually be registered. The first is graphical representation — the sign must be capable of being represented on paper in a clear, precise and durable way. The second is distinctiveness — consumers must perceive the sign as identifying one source rather than as a mere feature of the product. These two requirements explain almost the entire pattern of what succeeds and what does not. Where a sensory feature can be reduced to a stable graphical form and shown to function as a source identifier, registration is realistic. Where it cannot, the sign tends to fall at the first hurdle regardless of how strong its commercial association may be. The commercial appeal of a sensory mark is rarely the problem. The problem is reducing a sound, a scent or a movement to a clear, durable graphical form. Sound is the non-traditional category on the firmest footing. Rule 26(5) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 expressly provides for sound-mark applications through submission of an MP3 recording of up to thirty seconds together with a graphical representation of the notes, typically in the form of musical notation. That procedural clarity has translated into practice: distinctive audio signatures — corporate jingles and device tones among them — have been accepted for registration where they are shown to be associated by consumers with a single undertaking. For a brand whose identity includes a recognisable sonic element, the route to protection exists and is reasonably well understood. Shapes and colours occupy a middle ground. The shape of goods or their packaging can be registered, but functional shapes are excluded and distinctiveness must be clearly established. Single colours are not separately codified and generally require proof that the colour has acquired secondary meaning — that consumers associate it exclusively with one brand — while combinations of colours are more readily protectable. The Delhi High Court’s recognition, in Colgate Palmolive v. Anchor, that a distinctive colour combination can be protected illustrates the point: the sign must do identifying work, not merely decorate the product. Smell and motion marks remain the hardest to secure in India. The difficulty is not conceptual — a scent or an animated sequence can plainly function as a brand signal — but representational: there is no widely accepted way to depict a smell graphically with the precision the law demands, and motion and hologram marks pose comparable challenges. As a practical matter, scent marks have generally not been registered in India, and any reports of novel techniques to represent them should be treated with caution until tested. This is where the comparative gap is sharpest: some jurisdictions, including the European Union, have moved away from a strict graphical-representation requirement towards any representation that is clear and precise, opening the door wider to non-visual marks. India, for now, has retained the traditional requirement. For brands pursuing an experiential identity — particularly in luxury, hospitality and retail, where sensory branding is most developed — the upshot is a layered reality. A sonic identity is protectable through an established route; a distinctive colour combination or shape is protectable with sufficient evidence of distinctiveness; a signature scent or motion is, for now, far harder to register in India than in some other markets. Understanding which elements of a sensory identity are realistically registrable, and which are better protected by other means, is the practical starting point. a Yes. Rule 26(5) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 provides for sound-mark applications through an MP3 recording of up to thirty seconds with a graphical representation, usually musical notation, provided the sound is distinctive and perceived as identifying a single source. a It is very difficult. The main obstacle is the graphical-representation requirement, which is hard to satisfy for a scent, and as a practical matter scent marks have generally not been registered in India. a Shapes of goods or packaging can be registered if distinctive and non-functional. Single colours generally require proof of acquired secondary meaning, while distinctive colour combinations are more readily protectable. a Several jurisdictions, including the EU, have relaxed the strict graphical-representation requirement in favour of any clear and precise representation, which widens the door to non-visual marks. India has retained the traditional requirement.