At Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys, we are often asked a familiar question: “Won’t AI make patent professionals obsolete?” Our clear view is that AI will significantly change how patent work is done, but it will not replace the professionals who understand technology, law, and business strategy. Research on legal work shows that only a portion of what inventors do can be automated with current technology, and that the most critical parts of our role, such as understanding inventions, crafting defensible claims, assessing risk, and advising clients, remain deeply human and judgment driven.   Global studies, including those from international policy bodies, further indicate that generative AI is more likely to augment jobs than eliminate them by taking over routine, repetitive tasks while people focus on complex problem solving and client facing work. One of the most important responsibilities of a patent professional is the strategic drafting of patent claims. Claim drafting is not simply a technical exercise; it requires careful consideration of future technologies, potential design-arounds, and the competitive landscape of the industry. A well-drafted patent claim must balance breadth and defensibility while anticipating how competitors might attempt to avoid infringement. Such foresight relies heavily on human experience and strategic thinking rather than algorithmic output. In patent practice, this means AI can accelerate prior art searching, information extraction, and first cut drafting, but it still relies on trained patent professionals to ensure legal soundness, commercial alignment, and jurisdiction specific compliance. Even the most advanced IP platforms position themselves as copilots rather than replacements, and AI native IP teams around the world are actively hiring patent experts to design workflows, supervise tools, and validate outputs, which suggests that new roles are emerging for those who can combine IP expertise with AI fluency.   From our perspective, the real risk is not that AI will take patent jobs, but that professionals who ignore AI will be outperformed by those who learn to use it well. The future of patent practice belongs to attorneys and agents who embrace AI for efficiency while doubling down on human strengths such as strategy, advocacy, and nuanced, accountable client counsel. For us, AI is not a threat to patent professionals; it is a powerful set of tools that, when used wisely, allows us to deliver better, faster, and more business aligned IP advice to our clients. While artificial intelligence can assist in certain technical aspects of patent work, it cannot replicate the strategic judgment, legal expertise, and client-focused advisory role performed by patent professionals. The profession is therefore not becoming obsolete; instead, it is evolving toward a more sophisticated role where human expertise remains central and indispensable.   In this evolving landscape, AI will not replace patent professionals; it will transform them into technology-enabled advisors capable of navigating increasingly complex innovation ecosystems.  

 Continuing our 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬, a practical guide for inventors, startups, and researchers to better understand patent protection in India.   It’s time to understand the difference between a utility patent and a design patent which is essential for any inventor/researcher seeking to protect an innovation. Choosing the appropriate type of patent determines the scope and strength of legal protection. In many jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, inventors may apply for either a utility patent or a design patent depending on whether they wish to safeguard the functional aspects of their invention or its ornamental appearance. While both types of patents grant exclusive rights, they differ significantly in terms of scope, application requirements, duration of protection, and overall cost. Utility Patent A utility patent protects the functional aspects of an invention: how it works, how it is used, and how it is made. It covers: Example: If you invent a new type of engine that improves fuel efficiency, a utility patent would protect the mechanical system and operational method. In India, such protection is granted under the Patents Act, 1970 and requires novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. A patent is granted for twenty years from the filing date and confers the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the invention without authorization. Design Patent A design patent protects the ornamental appearance or aesthetic features of a product: how it looks rather than how it works. It covers: Example: The distinctive curved shape of a smartphone may be protected by a design patent, even if the internal electronics are protected separately by a utility patent. A design patent, in contrast, protects the ornamental or aesthetic appearance of a product rather than its function. The term originates in U.S. law, where ornamental protection is incorporated within the patent framework under the Patent Act of 1952. It covers features such as shape, configuration, pattern, surface ornamentation, or visual layout, provided they are not dictated solely by function. India follows a different structure. Functional inventions are governed by the Patents Act, 1970, while aesthetic features are protected independently under the Designs Act, 2000. Design protection in India is therefore not a category of patent but a separate statutory right. It protects visual features judged solely by the eye and is granted for ten years, extendable by five.

Continuing our Knowledge Base Patent Series, a practical guide for inventors, startups, and researchers to better understand patent protection in India. For innovators, startups, and corporate R&D teams, understanding what can and cannot be patented in India is crucial. This section of the Indian Patents Act-Section 4 define key exclusions. This section applies for atomic energy inventions; such applications are referred to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board for scrutiny after filing at Indian Patent Office. With the introduction of the SHANTI Act, 2025, the landscape for nuclear and other sensitive technologies has changed significantly, opening new opportunities for patent protection while safeguarding national interests. Section 4:   Inventions relating to atomic energy not patentable. No patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962). Historically, Section 4 prohibited patents for inventions related to atomic energy, as defined under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. The goal was clear: maintain government control over strategic nuclear technologies and prevent misuse. While this ensured national security, it also blocked innovators from patenting inventions in peaceful applications such as nuclear medicine, radiation-based industrial solutions, and safety systems. But now after the amendment in Section 4, SHANTI Act, 2025, has modernized this approach. Today, inventions related to nuclear energy with peaceful applications can be patented, while sensitive technologies that implicate national security remain under government control. This shift provides clarity and encourages investment and research in areas that were previously off-limits, creating a fertile environment for startups, multinationals, and research institutions to innovate responsibly. Existing under the Patents Act continue to apply alongside the amended Section 4. Section 35 enables secrecy directions to be issued where an invention is considered relevant for defence purposes, restricting its publication or disclosure. Section 39 imposes restrictions on filing patent applications outside India without prior permission of the Central Government. These provisions operate in conjunction with the SHANTI Act to regulate the disclosure and protection of inventions relating to nuclear technologies. Why this Section Matter? Section 4 sets clear limits on what can and cannot be patented in India, especially when it comes to nuclear-related inventions. By understanding these limits, companies and researchers can make better decisions. They can focus their research and development efforts on inventions that are actually eligible for patent protection, avoid legal problems by ensuring their innovations meet ethical and technical requirements, and take advantage of new opportunities; particularly in peaceful nuclear and radiation-based technologies. Importantly, the SHANTI Act has changed the earlier position under Section 4. Instead of completely banning patents for nuclear-related inventions, the law now allows patents for inventions meant for peaceful use, while keeping strict government control over technologies that may affect national security. Today, India’s patent regime balances innovation, public interest, and national security. Nuclear and radiation-based inventions for peaceful purposes can now be patented, offering opportunities for commercialization, licensing, and global collaboration. Similarly, Section 5 ensures that only inventions with technical merit and social value receive protection, encouraging meaningful innovation across sectors. For companies, startups, and researchers, this is an ideal time to explore patenting technologies that were previously excluded, secure legal protection, and participate in India’s growing innovation ecosystem with confidence. 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐭: Distinguish between Utility Patent vs. Design Patent  

The recent controversy at the India AI Impact Summit 2026—where Galgotias University showcased a quadruped robotic dog later identified as the commercially manufactured Unitree Go2 developed by Unitree Robotics -highlights a critical issue for India’s intellectual property ecosystem: the need to clearly distinguish between innovation and invention. In view our perspective, this distinction is not semantic; it is legal and strategic. An invention is a novel and non-obvious technical solution that satisfies statutory requirements under patent law—novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. It is protectable. An innovation, however, is broader. It may involve adapting, integrating, or commercially deploying existing technologies. Innovation drives value, but it does not automatically qualify for patent protection. This difference becomes particularly significant in India’s expanding academic patent landscape. Educational institutions are filing patent applications at unprecedented rates, often at early research stages. While early filings are not inherently problematic, filing volume has increasingly become a proxy for technological capability and institutional performance. This creates pressure to demonstrate ownership of “innovation,” sometimes without clearly identifying whether there is a patentable technical contribution. For patent firms advising universities and research institutions, the first question must always be: What is the actual inventive step? In situations involving commercially available hardware or software platforms, the legal threshold for patentability lies in the improvement—not in the use of the platform itself. Without a clear inventive contribution, patent claims risk rejection, invalidation, or future enforcement challenges. Misalignment between public claims of technological development and the underlying technical reality can also create downstream risks: incorrect inventorship attribution, ownership disputes, weakened due diligence outcomes, and reputational harm that affects investor confidence. Patent professionals therefore play a gatekeeping role. Beyond drafting applications, they must conduct rigorous prior art assessments, evaluate whether a contribution rises to the level of invention, and counsel clients on appropriate forms of protection—whether patents, trade secrets, design rights, or contractual safeguards. As India strengthens its position in the global innovation landscape, credibility will matter as much as filing numbers. Sustainable growth in the IP ecosystem depends not merely on demonstrating innovation, but on accurately identifying and protecting true inventions. IP firms, understanding and enforcing; the distinction between innovation and invention is not optional. It is fundamental to building defensible portfolios, maintaining institutional integrity, and supporting a trustworthy innovation ecosystem. The Galgotias episode is a reminder: showcasing technology is not the same as creating it, and using a platform is not the same as inventing one.

What Inventions Are NOT Patentable in India? (Understanding on Section 3 of the Indian Patents Act) Continuing our 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬, a practical guide for inventors, startups, and researchers to better understand patent protection in India. When inventors apply for patents in India, it’s important to know that not all inventions qualify for patent protection. The Indian Patents Act sets some clear rules about what cannot be patented, mainly in under Sections 3 to 5. Let’s understand these rules in simple terms.   Section 3: What Cannot Be Patented? Key points to note under Section 3: types of inventions excluded from patentability include: 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐭: Continuation with Section 4 and Section 5 with Non 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫

What Makes an Invention Patentable in India? This is an important question every inventor should understand. Many inventors believe that having a good idea automatically qualifies them for a patent. But in reality, this is not how patent protection works in India. Under Indian Patent Law, every invention must pass specific legal and technical tests before it can be granted a patent. Understanding these basics early can save time, money, and disappointment. So, what actually makes an invention patentable in India? Inventor must know: Key factors to keep in mind when determining whether an invention is patentable in India 1.      Novelty – The Invention Must Be New An invention must be completely new at the time of filing. It should not be disclosed anywhere in the world, including: Inventor must know that the inventor’s own public disclosure before filing can destroy novelty. 2.      Inventive Step – It Must Not Be Obvious It is very important to work on technical advancement of invention that is not obvious to a person skilled in the relevant field.In simple terms, inventive step means, the inventor is solving problem in unique and different ways. Accordingly, Indian examiners follow to examine the invention strictly, especially in mechanical, software, and electronics inventions. 3.      Industrial Applicability – It Must Be Useful Inventor must know that which problem solved by his, the invention must be: Capable of being made or used in an industry and also able to produce a practical result. If an invention is only a theory or an idea without real-world application, it is not patentable in India. Final Thought of this Article: Applicant/Inventor should understand that patentable invention in India is not just about having a great idea-it’s about how new, non-obvious, useful, and well-documented that idea is under Indian Patent law. If you’re an inventor, startup, or researcher, early patent strategy and proper drafting matter as much as the invention itself.   Coming Next: Which inventions do NOT fall under “Patentable Subject Matter” in India? (Section 3 explained in the next Knowledge Base article)

The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025 (SHANTI Act) fundamentally transforms India’s nuclear patent landscape from categorical prohibition to conditional authorization. ​The Legacy Framework (Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962) For over five decades, Section 20(1) imposed an across-the-board prohibition on patents for inventions in the atomic energy field. This encompassed reactor technologies, uranium enrichment processes, radioactive substance handling, and nuclear safety infrastructure. The Central Government retained sweeping discretionary authority to withhold patent protection across the entire nuclear sector. ​The New Framework (Section 38 of the SHANTI Act) The SHANTI Act introduces a permissive-with-exceptions model for nuclear energy patents. Patents may be granted for nuclear-related inventions, provided they satisfy two conditions: they must be intended for peaceful purposes and must not fall into two statutorily prohibited categories: Government-Reserved Activities: Uranium enrichment or isotopic separation, management of spent nuclear fuel including reprocessing and radionuclide separation, handling of high-level radioactive waste, production and isotopic upgrading of heavy water, and any additional activities subsequently notified by the Central Government Security-Sensitive Inventions: Inventions that the Central Government determines to be sensitive in nature or to carry implications for national security Critical Requirements Commercial Opportunity The amended framework creates patent eligibility for a range of civilian nuclear technologies: next-generation reactor systems, diagnostic radiation equipment, therapeutic nuclear medicine applications, solutions for radioactive waste remediation, nuclear facility decommissioning technologies, nuclear safety monitoring instrumentation, advanced imaging diagnostics, and industrial radiation utilization. Strategic Implications The SHANTI Act shifts from blanket exclusion to conditional inclusion. Private sector players can now seek patent protection for nuclear technology innovations. Success requires embedding regulatory compliance into research from the start and maintaining ongoing dialogue with the Department of Atomic Energy about technology characterization and security classification.

Recently, on November 18, 2025, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, released draft guidelines for the use of the Geographical Indication (“GI”) Logo for comments and suggestions from the general public and concerned stakeholders. This comes in light of the Government of India’s process of developing comprehensive guidelines for the use of the GI logo. GI refers to an indication which identifies goods as agricultural, natural or manufactured goods (including handicrafts, food items) as originating, or manufactured in a definite geographical territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin; in case of manufactured goods, one of the activities of either production or processing or preparation takes place in such territory, region or locality. Re – Defining Authorized Users & permissible use of the GI logo and tagline The draft guidelines expand the scope of Authorized Users (earlier limited to “producers” of a good which has a registered GI ) to include any other person who has assent of the authorized user(s) or procures the goods directly or indirectly from the authorized user(s) of such goods, including dealers, packagers, any intermediaries in the supply chain. While the rationale behind expanding the pool of authorized users of the GI logo and tagline might be to increase transparency and ease of purchasing an authentic product registered under GI, and to also increase the visibility of such products, this move may be counterproductive as such expansive use may lead to the dilution of the authenticity associated with the GI logo and tagline, may also unjustly enrich the intermediaries, who may procure authentic products at a minimal rate, but sell them at a higher price to consumers by virtue of the GI logo and tagline attached by them more prominently on the packaging, brochures or other business incidentals. Pertinently, a similar set of guidelines was published in 2019 mandated DPIIT’s approval before any e-commerce platform or retail store could use the GI logo and tagline on their respective online sites or brick and mortar stores. Any such requirement is absent from the current proposed guidelines. Restrictions on the use of the GI logo and tagline In a bid to curb the unauthorized or misleading use of the GI logo and tagline, a list of instances that do not permit use of the GI logo is detailed, which includes: By expanding the scope of the definition of the authorized user (as discussed in the previous section), wider protection is also afforded to the authentic GI products sold by intermediaries. However, this risks innocent or unaware buyers who may purchase spurious goods carrying the GI logo and tagline from such intermediaries, instead of actual producers, which in turn would dilute the authority of the GI logo and tagline and be detrimental to actual producers who are preserving the true heritage of the country. Restriction on, and regulation of the use of Expressions/Indications identical or similar to GI (Registered Name) The use of the expressions or indications identical or similar to the GI (Registered Name) are restricted by the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Expressions/indications whose appearance and pronunciation are confusing in a way that consumers assume that the products to which said expressions/indications are affixed have the same characteristics as the registered GI products are prohibited. Specifications and use of the GI logo The guidelines prescribe the manner of use of the GI logo and tagline and emphasise their role in distinguishing GI goods from generic products, enabling consumer identification of authentic GI goods, supporting international branding, and preventing counterfeiting. As per the guideline, the GI logo and tagline must be clearly printed, of sufficient size for easy identification, and must retain their original design proportions, colour format, and tagline visibility. Any distortion or alteration is strictly prohibited. The guidelines promote prominent affixation of the GI logo and tagline on all packaging, labelling, and promotional materials relating to GI goods. However, the GI logo and tagline must not be used on processed products that merely use registered GI goods as ingredients. Further, their use is restricted exclusively to registered Indian GI products and is prohibited in relation to unregistered products, foreign GIs, or any unrelated goods Conclusion The draft guidelines are a welcome step in strengthening the role played by the GI logo and tagline in identifying authentic GI registered products. The guidelines also highlight the value of the GI logo as a universal certifying authority for Indian GI registered products, not only for local consumers, but also for consumers from abroad, thereby increasing the commercial value of such goods. Importantly, DPIIT has understood the need for stakeholder engagement, especially in light of the new proposed definition of authorized user. It will be interesting to see developments in the coming months, which would ultimately shape the final policy pertaining to the use of the coveted GI logo and tagline.  

The ever flourishing cross-border trade and the expansion of global markets has led to shedding of more importance on parallel importation and effective implementation of ranging price gaps. If we were to understand the concept of exhaustion of a trade mark in simple terms, we would break it down as one of the limitations under the intellectual property law. Once any good which are protected by an IP right are smarketed- by an enterprise or by anyone else with the prior consent of the registered proprietor, the IP rights of commercial exploitation over such goods discontinue to be exercised by the proprietor or such enterprise, as they are now exhausted.[1] A jargon usually used for this process is the first sale doctrine, as the rights of commercial exploitation end with the first sale of the good. Unless the law specifically upholds, any subsequent acts of rental, resale, leasing, lending etc. by third parties fail to fall under the whims or control of the proprietor or enterprise. Parallel imports or colloquially speaking, ‘grey market goods’ is a concept recognized under the TRIPS Agreement. It refers to the importation of branded or genuine goods sold in country A and exporting the same to another country B for the purpose of resale at a price lower than what is prevalent in the country of import. Such sale of imported goods at a lower price stem from fluctuations in currencies across countries or differences in the distribution channels between the countries of import and export.[2] Types of Exhaustion A.    Doctrine of National Exhaustion Under the concept of National Exhaustion, an IP owner is not entitled to control the commercial exploitation of goods which are placed in the domestic market either by himself or with his prior consent. This directly means that once the IP owner has placed its goods in the domestic market, its rights are considered to have been exhausted in the domestic market. However, an upside is that the owner can still oppose the importation of genuine goods which bear its trade mark and are sold outside the domestic territory. To illustrate this, if goods bearing a trade mark are registered in say, country A, and are put to sale by the owner in the same country by himself or through his prior consent, he cannot use his IP rights to prevent any subsequent sale of these goods in the country A. However, if the goods are put to sale in some other country, B, the owner can make a case of infringement against the person who imports such goods in country A and subsequently sells them.[3] An example of a country that follows the principle of national exhaustion is the United States of America. B.     Doctrine of International Exhaustion This concept works on the premise that the entire world is a single market or nation. As such, a good once sold in any of the markets exhausts the accompanying privileges of an owner over such goods. In other words, if goods bearing a mark are put to sale by an owner or with his consent in country A for sale, the owner cannot bar subsequent sales of those goods in country A or any other country for that matter. Examples of countries that follow the principle of International Exhaustion are India, Germany, Japan and Australia. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”), addresses exhaustion primarily through Sections 28, 29, and 30 of the Act. Section 28 grants the registered proprietor exclusive rights to use the trade mark and obtain relief against infringement[4]. Section 29 defines infringement, including unauthorized use of identical or deceptively similar marks in the course of trade[5]. The exhaustion doctrine appears in Section 30, particularly Section 30(3), which provides that where goods bearing a registered trade mark have been lawfully acquired, further sale or dealing in those goods does not amount to infringement. Section 30(4) qualifies this by allowing proprietors to oppose further dealings where legitimate reasons exist, especially where the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired[6] after they were put on the market. Judicial Development- Analysis of the Doctrine of International Exhaustion 1.  Xerox Corp v Puneet Suri (2007) [CS(OS) No. 2285/2006; Unreported Order dated 20.02.2007.)] One of the earliest Indian decisions on parallel imports is Xerox Corp v Puneet Suri. The Delhi High Court held that the defendant’s importation and sale of genuine second-hand photocopiers did not constitute infringement. The court reasoned that once goods were lawfully acquired and placed on the market by the proprietor, trade mark rights were exhausted. The court emphasized that the goods had not been changed or impaired and therefore fell within Section 30(3). 2.    Kapil Wadhwa v Samsung Electronics [2012] F.S.R. 27 A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that India follows the international exhaustion regime, determining that the phrase “the market”in Section 30(3) refers to the international market. Once goods are placed on the market anywhere in the world by the proprietor or with its consent, the Indian trade mark owner cannot prevent their importation and resale. Although the court recognized the proprietor’s concerns relating to differences between Indian and foreign models and the lack of warranty coverage in India, it determined that these issues did not justify prohibiting parallel imports. Instead, it directed importers to provide clear and prominent disclosures to consumers that the goods were imported, were not covered by Samsung’s Indian warranty, and that servicing would not be provided by Samsung. This requirement of disclosure has become a recurring judicial theme. Kapil Wadhwa thus establishes three doctrinal principles: first, international exhaustion applies; second, the defense requires goods to be genuine and lawfully acquired; and third, consumer disclosure can cure concerns about confusion or reputational harm, thereby negating legitimate reasons under Section 30(4). 3.  Seagate Technology LLC v Daichi International (2024) [CS(COMM) 67/2024, I.A. 4731/2024, I.A. 5897/2024, I.A. 6336/2024 & I.A. 6337/2024] In Seagate Technology LLC v Daichi International, the Delhi High Court addressed refurbished hard disk drives imported from abroad. The court reaffirmed the principles in Kapil

In the modern world, a corporation’s primary competitive strength is less derived by its physical capital and more by its intangible assets. Among these, trade marks play a pivotal role in shaping brand identity, market presence, and long-term commercial value. This article explores the rising practice of leveraging trade marks as collateral, and how businesses can use the value of their brands to access funds.   Trade Marks as Collateral: Concept and Method   A trade mark which is tied to a commercial product or service becomes inherently valuable owing to its marketing and use, which generates goodwill in the market. Such trade marks have become potent financial and lending assets globally, primarily because unlike other forms of intellectual property, the protection accorded to trade marks can be renewed till perpetuity.   As trade marks are a form of property, albeit intangible, they may be offered as collateral for securing loans through the creation of a security interest. This is typically accomplished by establishing a security interest in the trade mark. Under such an arrangement, a charge is created on the trade mark through a contractual obligation, whereby the owner pledges the mark to the lender or collateral agent to secure the loan. This can be structured in either of the following ways:   i. By way of transfer – This method involves the actual transfer of ownership through a written assignment or the grant of an exclusive licence executed by both the trade mark owner and the lender. Such assignments or licence agreements are recorded with the Trade Marks Registry by filing the requisite applications.   ii. By way of charge – This approach does not entail a transfer of ownership. Instead, it grants the financier certain rights over the trade mark, including priority over other creditors. Consequently, in the event of the trade mark owner’s default in repayment, the financier is entitled to dispose off, or appropriate the trade mark to satisfy the outstanding debt.   The security interest described above must be perfected by creating a public record to avoid the possibility of multiple and conflicting interests being created over the same asset. As the records of most IP Offices worldwide, including the Indian Trade Marks Registry, are publicly accessible, the recording of such interests ensures that any subsequent lender or financier can verify whether the trade mark(s) offered as security have already been encumbered in favour of another creditor.   Challenges in Using Trade Marks as Financial Assets While the idea of using trade marks as financial assets for raising capital is conceptually sound, several practical obstacles impede its effective implementation. Key challenges include:   i. Valuation Difficulty – The value of a trade mark depends on goodwill, reputation, continued commercial use, and consumer perception. Determining an accurate monetary value is often challenging, as IP transactions are typically confidential and actual brand valuations are not publicly disclosed. For example, a review of records on the IP India website indicates that many trade mark assignment agreements are recorded for nominal consideration merely to comply with procedural requirements.   ii. Lack of Institutional Expertise: Most financing institutions lack in-house expertise to assess the value of trade marks or other forms of intellectual property. This knowledge gap leads lenders to either refrain from offering credit against trade marks or classify such assets as high-risk collateral.   iii. Complex Regulatory Compliance: Banking regulations in several jurisdictions, including India, tend to favour tangible security over intangible assets like trade marks. This preference stems from the understanding that, in the event of a borrower’s default, the goodwill associated with a trade mark is often the first to erode. Consequently, trade marks are perceived as less reliable assets compared to traditional forms of security.   iv. High Transaction Costs: Financing arrangements based on trade marks typically require extensive due diligence, a clear legal assessment of rights and encumbrances, and contractual obligations to maintain the trade mark. These fixed and recurring legal costs can render low-value transactions unviable for start-ups and small businesses.   v. Limited Liquidity and Challenges in Recovery: In the event of default, lenders may find it difficult to monetise a trade mark, as identifying buyers and transferring rights is more complex than selling tangible property. Additionally, insolvency or default can damage the brand’s goodwill, reducing the trade mark’s value when lenders attempt recovery.   Legal Framework and Practice in India In India, the practice of using trade marks as collateral has gained limited traction, and primarily high net-worth corporations with established brand portfolios resort to this option. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not expressly provide for the creation of security interests over trade marks. Nevertheless, several statutory provisions and policy measures offer brand owners avenues to leverage their intangible assets.   i. SARFAESI Act, 2002 – This legislation enables financial institutions to create security interests over various forms of property, including intangible property such as trade marks.   ii. Companies Act, 2013 – Section 77 permits companies to create charges over intangible assets. Schedule III recognises intangible assets as a distinct class, expressly covering IP assets. Companies must register any charge created over such assets with the Registrar of Companies in the Register of Charges.   iii. National IPR Policy, 2016 – This policy led to the establishment of the Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM), which is tasked with the commercialisation and monetisation of IP assets. Its mandate includes (a) formulating guidelines for IP valuation, (b) facilitating investment in IP-based enterprises, and (c) recommending incentives for financial institutions to support the development and commercialisation of IP.   Despite these enabling legal provisions and policy initiatives, adoption at the ground level remains limited. A general lack of awareness among stakeholders, along with inconsistent judicial rulings and a few unfavourable case studies have obscured the legal landscape, making lenders hesitant and ultimately restricting widespread implementation.   For instance, in 2009, Kingfisher Airlines secured loans worth hundreds of crores from banks by pledging its trade mark portfolio, including KINGFISHER, the KINGFISHER BIRD LOGO, FLY KINGFISHER, and its tagline