Firm Profile > RNA Technology and IP Attorneys > Gurgaon, India
RNA Technology and IP Attorneys Offices
401-402, 4th Floor, Suncity Success Tower, Sector - 65, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon - 122 005, National Capital Region (Haryana), India
RNA Technology and IP Attorneys > The Legal 500 Rankings
Intellectual property Tier 3
Contentious IP matters at RNA Technology and IP Attorneys are spearheaded by Rachna Bakhru and Ranjan Narula, who field expertise in trade mark, copyright and design infringement and passing-off litigation before the courts and tribunals. The team is predominantly engaged by hi-tech clients in the IT, software, pharmaceuticals and electronics sectors. Filing, prosecution and commercial IP services are provided by co-head Rajiv Suri. The firm also provides a dedicated investigations team headed by Rahul Sethi which is applied to customs, anti-counterfeiting and enforcement strategies for global brand owners.
RNA Technology and IP Attorneys > Firm Profile
RNA’s business had its roots in trademarks before it branched into other forms of Intellectual Property. We are now known as one stop shop for IP which has been accredited with several independent recognition, positive reviews by clients and peers for the quality of services and advice. RNA team comprises trademark attorneys, researchers, patent agents, paralegals and IP investigators working seamlessly as a coordinated team. We provide our clients a complete picture of the pros and cons in pursuing a course of action along with varied alternatives related to any strategic decision that needs to be taken by them in pursuing a remedy.
We provide a complete range of IP services to a number of Fortune 500 companies, start-ups, research institutes, NGOs and government entities in India and South Asian countries including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives. We also manage IP portfolio of a number of Indian corporations assisting them to protect and enforce their rights globally in more than 47 countries (through our network of associates) covering North America, Canada, Latin America, South America, Europe, South East Asia, Middle East etc. We manage substantial enforcement and IP filing and prosecution work not only in India but also in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Our extensive IP experience, ever evolving IP knowledge and close relationships with local lawyers and investigators enables us to take effective actions in these jurisdictions.
In 2019-20 we filed over 600 applications before the Trademarks, Patent, Copyright, Designs office. Additionally, we instituted 100 litigation cases and 200+ opposition, cancellation matters for a diverse range of clients. We also manage a portfolio of over 1200 Patents.
IP practice specialisation
RNA provides complete range of IP services, from clearance searches to filing and prosecution of trademark application in India, India sub-continent, Trademark Transnational work, Trademark enforcement, oppositions and rectifications and IP strategy.
Our prosecution team provides full range of trade mark management services, from, strategizing, trade mark clearance to advertising and label/packaging clearance, registration through to managing renewals, assignments, licensing, general maintenance.
Our trademark services cover complete transnational work from conducting due diligence’s in mergers & acquisitions and IP audits to drafting and negotiating licensing and franchising agreements. We have developed expertise in filing and prosecuting international applications through the Madrid protocol for our local as well as global clients.
Our enforcement team comprises lawyers, researchers, and investigators that have both in-house and private practice experience. Our team is trained to devise strategies to find business solutions to IP legal issues. In the last 10 years, our team has handled over 600 civil actions and more than 1000 criminal actions working with local police. Our team is experienced in handling one-off infringements and devising a comprehensive enforcement campaign to create impact at both the manufacturing and distribution end. We work closely with businesses in understanding their priorities, distribution network, trade channels, and factors that affect their trade to devise enforcement campaigns that address both online and brick and mortar sales. We regularly advise clients on the most germane court for filing legal action and whether or not a civil or criminal option would be a viable option alongside provide individualised case management services at all stages of litigation. Additionally, we have worked on numerous online infringement issues and have several on-going cases on digital issues and specific to e-commerce portals.
RNA has developed a software (which we call Brand Protection Cop) to check e-commerce portals for identifying parties selling fake/counterfeit products. The cases instituted by us have a success rate of 90% in interim injunctions and final judgements.
The team at RNA worked closely with brand owners even during the lock down due to Covid 19 pandemic and handled interesting pharmaceutical court cases during this phase obtaining injunction orders and conducted successful raid actions resulting in seizure of huge quantity of infringing goods.
Clients at RNA
Our clientele covers the entire spectrum from multi-national IP owners and users to start-up businesses and individuals. The key clients of the firm are engaged in Pharmaceutical, Software, Information Technology, Electronics, Consumer and Luxury goods, Petrochemicals, Apparels, Hospitality, Sports and Fashion industry. Our services are fully supported by technology required to provide a smooth service experience to our clients. We have fully automated docketing system to keep track of deadlines and provide bespoke reports to our clients on a regular basis.
RNA derives its core value in the concept of building relationships. Our clients, teams and partners have been with us throughout our journey following this ideology and hence, we continue to nurture it with care and affection. We believe and sustain work life balance and provide a stimulating environment to our teammates for professional growth – both among lawyers and our support staff. The culture is furthered by complete transparency at work, systems and procedures. We work in an open office plan with senior team members always available and easily approachable by staff for brainstorming ideas and take collective responsibility in providing professional service experience to our clients.
International presence and alliances
We are active in Asia in organisations such as the:
- International Trademark Association (INTA),
- Asian Patent Attorneys Association (APAA),
- ASEAN IP Association, Intellectual property Owners Association (IPO),
- American Intellectual Property Association (AIPLA),
- World Customs Organisation
We regularly write for numerous IP-focused publications such as Lexology, Managing Intellectual Property, World Trademark Law Report, World Trademark Review etc.
- Timely response with pragmatic, efficient and cost effective solutions
- Clients at the heart of our services. We focus on getting to know our clients well and working collaboratively with them. One stop shop for clients spanning clearance Prosecution, Enforcement, strategy, transactions, Litigation of IP
- In-house Investigation Team ensuring quick turnaround time and protection of sensitive information.
- Professional and friendly; recognising the need to be flexible, open-minded and creative in all areas of business.
- Effective use of technology to provide client’s superior means of access to information through online databases and bespoke reports.
- Cross industry experience with international outlook and local expertise
- We care passionately about the communities in which we operate. Our teams are involved in several initiatives to improve the lives of others and undertake Pro Bono legal projects
- Awarded Enforcement Firm of the Year, Licensing & Franchising Firm of the Year, Technology, Media & Telecoms Firm of the Year in 2020 India IP Awards by Asia IP
- RNA Technology and IP Attorneys ranked in Tier 2 for Trademark contentious work and in Tier 3 for Trademark prosecution in 2020 by Managing IP
- ALB IP Rankings 2020 – RNA Technology and IP Attorneys ranked in Tier 2 in Trademarks/copyright and Patents
- RNA Technology and IP Attorneys ranked in the Silver band – recommended for enforcement and litigation in 2019 edition of the WTR 1000
- Puma Award for Best Trademark Firm in 2019;
- Intel Award for Outstanding Achievement and Service, 2019
- Awarded Trademark firm of the year 2018 by Asia IP
- RNA Technology and IP Attorneys – Notable IP firm by Asia IP
- Ranjan Narula – Trademark Star (MIP), 2020
- Rachna Bakhru – Patent Star (MIP), 2020
- Rajiv Suri – adjudged amongst WTR 1000 – World’s Leading Trademarks professionals by World Trademarks Review for 2020. Also adjudged as Recommended Prosecution Lawyer by Managing IPin 2019 and amongst “Recommended” lawyers in the Leaders League Intelligence Report and Directory Series for the years 2017 and 2018.
- Ranjan Narula WIPR Leader 2019
- Rachna Bakhru – recognized as ‘Women Star in IP’ by Legal Era (2019)
- Rachna Bakhru – Amongst Top 250 Women in Intellectual Property by Managing IP
- RNA, IP Attorneys – Trade mark contentious (MIP) 2018
- Ranjan Narula – Trademark Star (MIP), 2018
|Dispute resolution, IP management and Advisory||Ranjan Narulafirstname.lastname@example.org||9810089304|
|Enforcement, Investigation and Custom recordal||Rahul Sethiemail@example.com||9810144294|
|Patent, Trade secrets and ADR||Rachna Bakhrufirstname.lastname@example.org||9818345046|
|Transactions, IP Clearance and Prosecution||Rajiv Suriemail@example.com||9910245046|
|Oppositions, Cancellation and Trademark enforcement||Abhishek Nangiafirstname.lastname@example.org||9810955645|
Staff FiguresLawyers : 25 Paralegal : 7 Researchers : 7 Investigators : 6
LanguagesEnglish (fluent) Hindi and other Indian languages Tamil and other local languages
MembershipsInternational Trade Mark Association (INTA) Asian Patent Attorney Association (APPA) Intellectual Property Owners (IPO) ASEAN Intellectual Property Association (AIPA) American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
Legal Developments4th August 2021 Cattle Remedies (Cattle), registered proprietor of the mark UTEROTONE had filed rectification proceedings before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for removal of the mark UTROTON in the name of Nishi Gupta (Nishi). IPAB ruled in favour of Cattle, and cancelled Nishi’s registration for UTROTON.
19th July 2021 Under the India Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), there are prescribed depreciation rates for different categories of assets, called the 'block of assets' – which contain both tangible and intangible assets. The rates are applicable on the written down value (WDV) of the block of assets. As regards intangible assets, the IT Act provides for a list of such intangible assets on which depreciation can be claimed. These are know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature," i.e., the residual category of intangibles. The 'goodwill' is not explicitly covered in this list.
2nd June 2021 India is under the second wave of covid-19 facing a major public health crisis. There is a rush among people from all walks of life to get vaccinated as the Government has opened the vaccination for 18-44 years (until now, vaccination was only being provided to 45 and older). This immediately brought into focus India's readiness to vaccinate a large percentage of the population, stock available, and the price of vaccine.
18th May 2021 Today, the young consumer's expectations from the brands they buy are beyond good quality products. The millennials globally expect brands to do good in the world. The consumers hope that the brands resonate with their values and care about the environment, produce products responsibly without harming natural resources, and at the same time uplift the communities. And they aren't afraid to call for brand boycotts as part of the modern cancel culture. Therefore, the companies make every effort to align their brands with the consumer's expectations. Sadly, some of these efforts are not genuine.
7th May 2021 The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) recently released Annual Special 301 report on the adequacy and effectiveness of U.S. trading partners’ protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. As part of this exercise, USTR reviewed more than one hundred trading partners for this year’s Special 301 Report and placed thirty-two (32) of them on the Priority Watch List or Watch List.
29th April 2021
Bombay High Court heard an appeal against the order of the Ad-hoc District Judge-6, Pune, in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute, dismissing the injunction application filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, Sharmilee Kapur and Ors (SK) filed the suit before the District court against the Defendant, Kiran Bharekar (Kiran) alleging trademark infringement.
19th April 2021
A short but interesting point regarding jurisdiction comes up for consideration in the instant dispute between two entities in the healthcare industry. The Plaintiff, Cadila Healthcare Limited (Cadila) filed the passing off action against the Defendants, Uniza Healthcare LLP and another (Uniza) before the Delhi High Court, to safeguard its rights in the mark ZYCLEAR and restrain Uniza from dealing in pharmaceutical products under the name ZACLEAR.
19th April 2021
The trademark AMPA is the bone of contention in the instant dispute between two entities dealing in bicycles. The Plaintiff, Jagmohan Ratra (RATRA) filed the suit before the Delhi High Court against the Defendants, Ampa Cycles Private Limited (ACPL) and another alleging passing off. ACPL has filed application to set aside the injunction granted in favour of RATRA which is being considered by the court.
RATRA in the suit contends:
- He is the proprietor of the firm, M/s Four Diamonds, engaged in manufacturing and selling bicycles, tricycles, prams, baby rider bicycles, etc. under several brands, one of which is AMPA. The firm was established as a partnership firm in 1983 having two partners, Jagmohan Ratra and Sh.Hari Dutt Sharma.
- AMPA trademark and logo was coined by RATRA and adopted by the partnership in 1991.
- The partnership firm M/s Four Diamonds was dissolved vide a dissolution deed in 2003. RATRA continued the business under the trading name M/s Four Diamonds as sole proprietorship concern.
- Ampa Bikes Private Limited was incorporated in March 1992. In 1995 the company filed trademark application for the mark AMPA claiming use since 1992, however, the application was abandoned in 2002.
- As part of settlement, it was agreed RATRA could use the AMPA mark for cycles up to 14 inches and Ampa Bikes Private Limited was allowed to use the mark for all cycle models above 14 inches. In 2013, Ampa Bikes Private Limited was struck off from the Register of Companies and thus, ceased to exist.
- RATRA continued to use the mark AMPA uninterruptedly since its adoption in 1991 initially through the partnership firm, M/s Four Diamonds and thereafter, as a proprietorship concern.
- In 2019, RATRA applied for registration of the mark AMPA claiming use since 2011 which is pending. The mark has gained reputation and goodwill on account of extensive use, sales and marketing.
- In 2020, RATRA became aware of ACPL manufacturing and marketing cycles under an identical mark and logo AMPA. One of the Directors of ACPL had in the past dealt with RATRA and was aware of the prior use of the mark by RATRA. ACPL’s adoption of an identical mark is dishonest and to ride on the goodwill and reputation of RATRA’s mark garnered over three decades.
ACPL in the written statement contends:
- The trademark "AMPA" was coined and designed by Sh.Hari Dutt Sharma. Further to the dissolution of the partnership Sh.Sharma continued to use the trademark AMPA.
- In 2013, Ampa Bikes Private Limited through its authorised signatories, Hari Dutt Sharma, Ms.Nishtha Sharma and Sh.Ajay Kumar Bawa entered into an agreement for assignment of the trademark AMPA and it was decided that Sh.Ajay Kumar Bawa will have all the rights to manufacture and sell under the trademark AMPA.
- In 2013, Ampa Bikes Private Limited was struck off from the Register of the companies as there was no business in the said company. In 2018, Sh.Ajay Kumar Bawa along with Sh.Anmol Bawa decided to manufacture cycles/tricycles/bikes under the brand name AMPA being the bona fide user of the brand AMPA and dealing in the cycle business since many decades.
- In 2018, ACPL was incorporated and they applied for the mark AMPA with the Trademark Registry in 2018. The applications were filed in 2018 and 2020 on a ‘proposed to be used basis’.
- RATRA with dishonest intention and to extort monies has filed a frivolous trademark application for the mark AMPA claiming its user since, 2011 which is inconsistent and the invoices filed appear to be forged.
The court after considering the pleadings, documents, arguments and case laws held:
- It is an admitted fact that AMPA mark was coined by the partnership firm, M/s Four Diamonds or one of its partners in the year 1991. Thereafter, in 2003 the firm was dissolved and Sharma exited from the partnership firm and took charge of the company Ampa Bikes Pvt. Ltd. As per the terms of settlement RATRA was entitled to use the mark AMPA in relation to cycles below 14'' while Ampa Bikes Pvt. Ltd. was allowed to use the mark AMPA for models of more than 14''. It is further admitted that in 2013, Ampa Bikes Pvt. Ltd. was struck off from the Register of Companies and ceased to exist.
- The averment that Ampa Bikes Pvt. Ltd. through its authorised signatory, Sharma assigned the trademark AMPA to Ajay Kumar Bawa and he would have all rights to manufacture and sell products under the trademark AMPA is disputed. RATRA has contended that the deed of assignment is a fraudulent document created as an afterthought to justify use of the trademark AMPA by ACPL.
- ACPL incorporated in 2018 have filed three trademark applications, one in 2018 and two in 2020, all of which are on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. Thereafter, to claim that this was done based on an erroneous advice and that there is prior user prima facie appears to be an afterthought. Thus, at this stage without leading evidence, ACPL’s plea cannot be accepted. On the other hand, RATRA has filed invoices dating back to the year 2011 and the trademark application also claims user from 2011.
In light of the above, court ruled in favour of RATRA holding that it had made out a prima facie case, confirmed the injunction in his favour and dismissed the application filed by ACPL.
25th March 2021
Two entities dealing in milk and dairy products vie for rights in the mark/name CREMO before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Plaintiff, Cremo S.A., (Cremo S.A), filed the suit before the District Court, Faridabad (Haryana), against the Defendants, Cremo Netureal Milk LLP & another (CNML), alleging passing off. Cremo S.A., a swiss company, sought to restrain CNML from selling products under the name 'Cremo' or dealing in any manner under the trademark 'Cremo' and/or 'Cremo Netureal Milk LLP'.
19th March 2021
According to digital marketing agency AdLift, India’s influencer market is estimated at $75-150 million a year, as compared to the global market of $1.75 billion.
9th March 2021
OTT platform and digital media has picked up a fast pace in India especially with internet penetration reaching over 50% of the Indian populace which in sheer population numbers works out to staggering (more than) 700 million. Hence, the very concept of OTT is revolutionary in terms of its audience reach.
9th March 2021
India, in recent years, has seen a massive surge in the number of internet users and people accessing social media platforms. The pandemic and the ensuing lockdown have doubled these numbers as more and more consumers turn to social media for interaction with their friends and families. At the same time, the digital explosion has given rise to concerns, namely lack of transparency, accountability, and users' rights related to digital media.
16th February 2021 A move that took many (if not most) IP practitioners and stakeholders by surprise, a Bill titled “The Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021” was introduced on 11th February, 2021 in the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian Parliament). The Bill proposes to abolish “certain tribunals and authorities and to provide a mechanism for filing appeal directly to the commercial court or the High Court, as the case may be”. The apparent reason for such an exercise is that “analysis of data of the last three years has shown that tribunals in several sectors have not necessarily led to faster justice delivery and they are also at a considerable expense to the exchequer”. The Bill further states in its objects that the Tribunals that are proposed to be abolished in this phase are of the kind which handle cases in which public at large is not a litigant or those that neither take away any significant workload from High Courts - which otherwise would have, in any case, adjudicated upon such cases -nor provide speedy disposal. An additional argument in favour of removal of the Tribunals is that many cases do not achieve finality at this level and are litigated further upto the High Courts and Supreme Court, and especially those with significant implications. Therefore, these Tribunals only add to another additional layer of litigation. Rather, having separate Tribunal/s require administrative action in terms of filling up of posts and such other matters, and any delay in such action/s further leads to accumulation of backlog of cases. Hence, reducing the number of Tribunals shall not only be beneficial for the public at large, it will also reduce the burden on public exchequer - while at the same time, also address the issue of shortage of supporting staff of Tribunals and related infrastructure.
10th February 2021 The Plaintiff, UFO Contemporary, INC, filed action against the Defendants, Creative Kids Wear (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, alleging trademark infringement and passing off to restrain the latter from using the mark UFO in relation to manufacturing and marketing of clothing. The suit is a result of falling out between the parties on use and ownership of the mark UFO. The Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction restraining the Defendants from using the mark UFO.
2nd February 2021 Court frowns upon bad faith adoption ‘Thirumala’ a sacred town in Chittor district, Andhra Pradesh famous for Lord Venkateswara’s Temple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venkateswara_Temple,_Tirumala is being subject of trademark tussle between two entities dealing in milk and dairy products. The Plaintiff, Tirumala Milk Products Private Limited (TMPL), registered proprietor of the mark filed the suit at the Madras High Court against the Defendants, Swaraj India Industries Limited (SIIL) and Ors, alleging trademark infringement, passing off and other ancillary reliefs. TMPL seeks to restrain SIIL from using the trademark 'Thirumala'/'Thirumala Milk' or any other marks deceptively similar including 'Tirumalaa Daairy' . The High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of TMPL which is challenged by SIIL.
1st February 2021 The ruling of the single judge of Karnataka High Court holding that an e-commerce marketplace being an 'intermediary' is not liable for any action or inaction on the part of a vendor/seller has come as a significant relief for e-commerce portals and their directors/officers. The court thus proceeded to quash criminal proceedings against the Directors of e-commerce portal, Snapdeal.
20th January 2021 As we begin a new year, there is optimism and hope given the unprecedented challenges businesses and consumers faced during 2020. Our post provides a round-up of key developments in legislative, regulatory, and judicial arena that highlight the Indian IP environment remains vibrant.
11th January 2021
In an interesting case, District Consumer Redressal Forum in Kerala (CC 345/12) recently passed an order penalizing the Malayalam movie actor Anoop Menon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoop_Menon and the manufacturers of Dhathri Hair Cream https://www.dhathri.com/hair-protector/p/15327821 for making false claims in an advertisement issued in 2012. The movie star and Dhathri were ordered to pay compensation to the complainant and a fine imposed on the medical store that sold the hair cream. The case was based on the old Consumer Protection Act, which has been revised to make celebrities responsible while taking up brand endorsements. Interestingly, the new Consumer Protection Act of 2019, which came into force on July 20, 2020, has express provisions for fixing liability on the endorsers. It also provides for imposing fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees (approx. USD 14,000) and up to fifty lakh rupees (approx. USD 70,000) for every subsequent contravention. The Authority may further prohibit the endorser of a false or misleading advertisement from making endorsement of any product or service
11th November 2020 Questsfor personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation donot hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress factsin the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent haveovershadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.
26th October 2020 Working Statement required to be filed by patentees every year continues to be a controversial subject. The frequent change in forms and differing stand of the Patent Office has added to the confusion.
21st October 2020 As Covid19 has created business uncertainty, the M&A activity, in general, has slowed down but still there are companies/businesses that are tapping crisis opportunity to make strategic acquisitions. We outline a few commonly asked questions from IP perspective in a transaction involving transfer of IP assets.
24th May 2020 ISPs and Direct Selling Entities at loggerheads over US$ 1.7 billion opportunity The Direct Selling Entities ("DSEs") Amway, Oriflame and Modicare that have a specific business model are embroiled in dispute with leading e-tailers, Amzon, Snapdeal, Cloudtail alleging the sale of their products on e-commerce platforms are unauthorized and without their consent. The Single Judge found in favour of DSEs and passed a common order in interlocutory applications restraining Amazon, Cloudtail and Snapdeal from selling the goods of the DSEs. The said order was challenged by way of six appeals (to the Division Bench), which were heard together as they involved a common question of law. The post briefly summarizes the Single Judge order and focuses on Appellate Bench order that took a completely different view on Direct Selling Guidelines ("DSGs") and ISP liabilities. Indian direct selling industry accounts for INR 13,000 crore (approx. US$ 1.7 billion) business and directly or indirectly employs around 5.7 million people as of the FY 2018-19. Thus the ruling has legal and economic ramifications.
21st April 2020 FAQ's on Well-Known Trade Marks 1) Are well known marks protected in India? Yes, well known marks are protected in India. There are specific provisions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and procedure to record well known trade marks in India is provided under the Trademarks Rules, 2017 enacted under the Act, 1999. Prior to March 2017 there was no procedure in place to record well known marks in India though they were protected under specific provision (Section 11(6)) of the Trade Marks Act.
31st March 2020 Will difference in pronunciation in certain parts of the country leading to phonetic similarity be sufficient to grant an order of injunction? This is the crux of the issue in the instant appeal before the Division Bench (two judge bench) of the High Court of Rajasthan. The Plaintiff, Deepak Vegpro Private Limited (Deepak) filed the suit before the Commercial Court no.1, Jaipur, alleging trademark infringement and passing off to restrain the Defendant, Ritika Vegetable Oil Private Limited (Ritika) from using the mark NIRAB in relation to same products. The district court granted an injunction and aggrieved by the injunction order, Ritika has filed the appeal before the DB of the High Court which is under consideration.