Author name: Praharsh Gour

As 15 Asia Pacific Countries Sign RCEP, India Chooses to Sit Out

/ By / Others, Patent

Last week, ten south-east Asian countries along with Japan, China, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand signed the Agreement on Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) making it the world’s largest trade bloc. Initially projected as the alternative to Trans Pacific Partnership, the negotiations for this free trade agreement (FTA) were underway since 2012 and after 31 rounds (as per Wikipedia), the member states finally sealed the deal four days ago via a video conference. While some reports suggest that the […]

As 15 Asia Pacific Countries Sign RCEP, India Chooses to Sit Out Read More »

Delhi HC Delivers a Blow to “Delhivery”: Rules the Mark to be Phonetically Generic; Ineligible for Statutory Benefits

/ By / Trademark

In an interesting turn of events, the Delhi HC on 12th October, 2020, vacated an interim injunction effectively permitting the Respondent (Treasure Vase Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) to use the impugned trademark ‘DELIVER-E’.  In doing so the court held that the Applicant’s (Delhivery Pvt. Ltd.) registered trademark ‘DELHIVERY’ is phonetically similar to the English word ‘delivery’ and is a generic mark, not eligible for benefit of statutory rights. The court reiterated that unless a generic mark has achieved distinctiveness, it cannot

Delhi HC Delivers a Blow to “Delhivery”: Rules the Mark to be Phonetically Generic; Ineligible for Statutory Benefits Read More »

Wishful Thinking? Analyzing India and South Africa’s Joint Statement to Waive Key Provisions of TRIPS- Part II

/ By / Copyright, COVID-19, Patent, Trade Secret

In the first part of this two-part post, I assessed the joint statement proposed by South Africa and India for waiver of certain key provisions of TRIPS. Following the joint statement, 379 NGOs and members of civil societies wrote to WTO, in support of the waiver. On the day of the meeting, the proposal attracted the support of a large number of developing countries and LDCs, notably Tanzania, Chad, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Venezuela, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Egypt, Indonesia, Argentina,

Wishful Thinking? Analyzing India and South Africa’s Joint Statement to Waive Key Provisions of TRIPS- Part II Read More »

Wishful Thinking? Analyzing India and South Africa’s Joint Statement to Waive Key Provisions of TRIPS – Part I

/ By / Copyright, COVID-19, Overlaps in IP, Patent, Trade Secret

On 2nd October, 2020, India and South Africa issued a joint statement before the WTO TRIPS Council, with a request to waive “the implementation, application and enforcement of Sections 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement in relation to prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19.” This waiver, annexed with a draft decision for the WTO General Council, was requested to ensure that IPRs do not encumber the access to affordable medicines or R&D, manufacturing and

Wishful Thinking? Analyzing India and South Africa’s Joint Statement to Waive Key Provisions of TRIPS – Part I Read More »

University of Miami Wins Appeal at IPAB over Cancer Drug Patent ‘Coenzyme Q10 Formulations and Methods of Use’

/ By / Patent

For the fourth time in past two months the IPAB allowed an appeal against the order of the Controller and granted patent in favor of the appellant. The IPAB through order dated 25th August, 2020, (pdf) allowed an appeal against the Controller of Patents’ (Respondent) rejection of  the University of Miami’s (Appellant) application over a pharmaceutical composition comprising “Topical Co-enzyme Q10 (CoQ 10) Formulations and Methods of use” for treatment of cancer. Among other reasons, the Controller had deemed that

University of Miami Wins Appeal at IPAB over Cancer Drug Patent ‘Coenzyme Q10 Formulations and Methods of Use’ Read More »

A Tale of Two Sujatas: Delhi HC Reflects on Suppression of Material Facts and Clean Hands Doctrine

/ By / Trademark

In an interesting scenario that perhaps adds to the mounting pile of evidence of ex-parte interim injunctions being problematic, the Delhi High Court on 9th September, 2020, modified an ex-parte interim injunction order after finding that the plaintiff concealed material facts during the hearing. The initial order had estopped the defendants, Sujata Electronics (defendant no. 1), its manufactures (defendants no. 2 & 4), and its dealers (defendant no. 3) from manufacturing, importing, selling any products under the mark ‘SUJATA’. And

A Tale of Two Sujatas: Delhi HC Reflects on Suppression of Material Facts and Clean Hands Doctrine Read More »

Scroll to Top