Author name: Praharsh Gour

Praharsh Gour is an Editor and Researcher at SpicyIP, where he writes on developments in intellectual property law, innovation policy, and international trade. His work focuses on the intersection of IP and international trade, particularly the realpolitik implications of global IP enforcement for the Global South, including questions of access, regulatory governance, and institutional reform. He holds a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from Hidayatullah National Law University and a Master’s degree from South Asian University. Prior to joining SpicyIP, he worked as a Senior Research Fellow at the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, where he assisted in matters concerning countervailing duties, antidumping, and safeguard investigations.

Music to Many Ears! Bombay High Court Passes a Landmark Order Recognizing the Right to Receive Royalties by Authors of Underlying Works

/ By / Copyright

[Long post ahead]  In a momentous development, the Bombay High Court made a bunch of important interpretations concerning the rights of the authors of underlying literary and musical works in light of the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012. The court passed a joint order in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd and Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Ltd. (pdf) and clarified that post the 2012 amendment, communication of a sound recording to the public […]

Music to Many Ears! Bombay High Court Passes a Landmark Order Recognizing the Right to Receive Royalties by Authors of Underlying Works Read More »

Rectifying Problematic Interim Injunctions: A Discussion on the Bombay High Court’s DB Decision in  Tri-Parulex v. CTR Manufacturing Industries

/ By / Patent

In perhaps a rare sighting, the Bombay High Court Division Bench’s recent order in Tri-Parulex Fire Protection System v. M/s. CTR Manufacturing Industries Private Limited (DB order) shows a lucid and crisp analysis of the three factors test for interim injunction in a patent related dispute. Readers will recall that unreasoned interim injunction orders have been discussed extensively on the blog (see here, here, here and here) wherein different authors have highlighted the risks associated with these unreasoned orders and

Rectifying Problematic Interim Injunctions: A Discussion on the Bombay High Court’s DB Decision in  Tri-Parulex v. CTR Manufacturing Industries Read More »

Done, so Dusted? Discussing the Relevance of the Responses Filed Against FERs Issued by Trademark Registry

/ By / Trademark

Riddle me this, what is something that, despite cited similar marks, helps you get a trademark right; But is not relevant later unless the cited mark puts up a fight? Well, according to the Delhi High Court’s judgement in Under Armour INC v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd., it’s the reply to the first examination report (FER) filed by the Plaintiff. Let’s back up a little. The dispute in the present case was around the adoption of the marks

Done, so Dusted? Discussing the Relevance of the Responses Filed Against FERs Issued by Trademark Registry Read More »

Madras High Court Notifies Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 

/ By / Others

In a huge development for IP community, the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 have been notified in the official gazette dated April 5, 2023 (pdf). The current notification comes after the directions of the Court to notify the inauguration of the IP Division in  Galatea Limited v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras (see posts here and here), making it the second Court in the country to have an IP Division, after the Delhi High

Madras High Court Notifies Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022  Read More »

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 »

Scroll to Top