Author name: Praharsh Gour

Bombay High Court Grants (the First?) Section 32 License to Translate a Literary Work in Marathi

/ By / Copyright

March is a remarkable month for history and literature buffs because of the whole “ Beware of the ides of March” thing. But IP nerds will specifically remember that eleven years ago, in March 2012, India’s first compulsory license was granted by the Indian Patent Office against Bayer’s Nexavar. One year later, in March 2013 the compulsory license order was upheld by the IPAB in a landmark ruling by the then Chairperson, Justice Prabha Sridevan. And now after 10 years […]

Bombay High Court Grants (the First?) Section 32 License to Translate a Literary Work in Marathi Read More »

Jab We Met (if at all): Do Patent Oppositions and Examination Run on a Parallel track? Delhi High Court to Examine

/ By / Patent

In yet another Natco-Novartis matter before the Delhi High Court, a couple of very interesting issues have arisen. While the dispute has been ongoing since 2016, the post will mostly focus on the January 2023 order. One of the issues addressed in the order was regarding the question of whether opposition proceedings are adversarial or do they run on a parallel track with the examination of an application. And the other is whether the patent in question, titled pharmaceutical combinations

Jab We Met (if at all): Do Patent Oppositions and Examination Run on a Parallel track? Delhi High Court to Examine Read More »

IPD for Madras High Court! The Court Directs the State Government to Notify the Rules Within 1 Week

/ By / Others

Last month, Lokesh wrote about the Madras High Court order in Galatea Limited v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras, where the court directed the government to notify the inauguration of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD). In a huge development, the court in the case has directed (pdf) the government to notify the IPD Rules except with the rule related to court fees, within 1 week from the receipt of the order, to much relief of IP practitioners

IPD for Madras High Court! The Court Directs the State Government to Notify the Rules Within 1 Week Read More »

Lookin’ for the Reason: Delhi High Court Comes Down Heavily on the IPO for Lack of Reasons in its Order

/ By / Patent

[This post is co-authored with Swaraj Paul Barooah] Various authors on this blog have repeatedly pointed out the lack of proper reasoning in patent orders, both from courts (see here) as well as from the patent offices (see here). This issue has also been pointed out by courts recently (see here, here and here). A few days ago, Justice Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court came out with probably the strongest indictment of this practice. In Dolby International v.

Lookin’ for the Reason: Delhi High Court Comes Down Heavily on the IPO for Lack of Reasons in its Order Read More »

Spill the Tee M: Discussing the Delhi High Court’s Order on Transborder Reputation in Toyota v TechSquare

/ By / Trademark

[This post has been co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Hiranya  Bhandarkar. Hiranya is a fourth-year law student at the School of Law, Bennett University. Her areas of interest are Intellectual Property Laws, Data Privacy Laws and Company Law.] In December 2017, the Apex Court in Toyota v Prius Auto Industries, set the standard of claiming transnational reputation in a mark backed by adequate evidence. In what may seem like a deja vu for Toyota, 5 years after the Supreme Court’s order,

Spill the Tee M: Discussing the Delhi High Court’s Order on Transborder Reputation in Toyota v TechSquare Read More »

Needs No Fixing if it’s Not Broken: Delhi High Court Refused to Import Provisions of Original Side Rules in the IPD Rules for the Consequences of a Delayed Rejoinder

/ By / Others

Recently, Ishant wrote on the Delhi High Court’s broad interpretation of the term “leaving with the registrar” under the Trademark Rules and the timeline of filing documents before the Registry. In a similar vein, the question of adhering to a prescribed timeline recently popped up before the IPD too. In Vinay Kumar GB v. Sudhir Kumar and Anr., the Delhi High Court passed an order clarifying that the time limit of 30 days to file a rejoinder prescribed under Rule

Needs No Fixing if it’s Not Broken: Delhi High Court Refused to Import Provisions of Original Side Rules in the IPD Rules for the Consequences of a Delayed Rejoinder Read More »

Delhi High Court Imposes Costs worth INR 2 Cr. for Disobeying Interim Injunction

/ By / Patent

Delhi High Court came down heavily on Triveni Interchem Pvt. Ltd (Triveni) in a recent order (Pfizer v. Triveni) and imposed costs worth whopping 2 Crores on it for “wilful and contumacious disobedience” of the interim injunction order dated 21st October 2021, whereby the court had restrained Triveni from manufacturing and selling Palbociclib. The Crime  Pfizer moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2A alleging that despite the injunction, Triveni was selling Palbociclib in different packaging. Triveni asserted that they

Delhi High Court Imposes Costs worth INR 2 Cr. for Disobeying Interim Injunction Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Supreme Court translates 1091 judgments into regional languages on Republic Day

/ By / Others

Today India marks the 74th year since it adopted the Constitution and identified itself as a “Republic”! This day celebrates the ability of our nation, bogged by colonial setup, to overcome the past and establish itself as the largest democracy in the world with perhaps the most diverse population. In a very positive step towards acknowledging this vast diversity, the Chief Justice of India, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud announced that the Supreme Court would be making available 1091 judgments in

SpicyIP Tidbit: Supreme Court translates 1091 judgments into regional languages on Republic Day Read More »

The Buck Stops At Freedom Of Expression: Delhi High Court Clarifies The Situation On Disparagement In Case Of Generic Comparison 

/ By / Trademark

[This post has been co-authored with our SpicyIP intern Ananya Dutta. Ananya is a 4th year student pursuing B.A LL.B (Hons.) from the Institute of Law, Nirma University.] In an extremely detailed order in Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. V. Dabur India Ltd., concerning the issue of comparative advertising and disparagement, the Delhi High Court held that “an advertiser ought to have the freedom to make advertisements with generic comparison highlighting the features of its own product..” thereby giving leeway to

The Buck Stops At Freedom Of Expression: Delhi High Court Clarifies The Situation On Disparagement In Case Of Generic Comparison  Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: IPO Cannot Introduce New Objections During a Hearing, holds Delhi High Court

/ By / Patent

Of late we have witnessed multiple orders (see here, here and here)  from different High Courts wherein the courts, without touching on the merits of the case, have clarified the expectations from the orders of the Indian Patent Office (IPO). Usually, these orders concerned the lack of appropriate reasons and justifications in part of the IPO, while rejecting a patent application. In this tidbit, we shall discuss another order from the Delhi High Court where the court has asserted the

SpicyIP Tidbit: IPO Cannot Introduce New Objections During a Hearing, holds Delhi High Court Read More »

Scroll to Top