Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 NOVEMBER 2022

Jurisprudential Aspects Of "Shape Mark" Under Indian Trade Marks Law

Kan & Krishme
Explore more from Kan & Krishme

Delhi High Court (hereinafter "the Court") in the case of "KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL v. EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS THROUGH REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS" examined the requirements for registering a "shape mark" in accordance with the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Sharad Vadehra
Sharad Vadehra
Rachana Bishnoi
Rachana Bishnoi
Pragati .
Pragati .
Author LinkedIn connections

Introduction

Delhi High Court (hereinafter "the Court") in the case of "KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL v. EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS THROUGH REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS"1 examined the requirements for registering a "shape mark" in accordance with the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter "the Act"). In this particular judgment, the Ld. High Court laid down jurisprudence with regard to the registrability of non-conventional trademarks such as "shape mark" in India. The Court opined that in order to protect a "shape mark" in India the same can only be granted if it has acquired a secondary meaning.

Facts of the Case

Appellant "Knitpro International" applied for registration of the shape of a knitting needle in Class 26 in respect of 'knitting needles and crochet hooks'. The image of "knitting needles" is shown herein below:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law