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.

Delhi High Court Clarifies that the Obligation to Serve Counter Statement Does Not Fall on the Applicant (Sun Pharma v. Dabur)

/ By / Trademark

Trademark lawyers in India can breathe a sigh of relief after an important clarification by the Delhi High Court regarding the duty to serve counter statements under the Trademarks Act. Recently, the Court accepted a review application (pdf) by the Intellectual Property Attorneys’ Association against the judgement passed in Sun Pharma v. Dabur India, wherein the Court had seemingly imposed the obligation to serve a Counter Statement to the Opponent, on the Applicant, instead of the Registrar. In the impugned […]

Delhi High Court Clarifies that the Obligation to Serve Counter Statement Does Not Fall on the Applicant (Sun Pharma v. Dabur) Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court Directs to Auction “Fortis” Trademark in the Daiichi-Ranbaxy Dispute

/ By / Trademark

In a fresh twist to the Daiichi-Ranbaxy saga, the Delhi High Court on October 29 directed (pdf) to auction the “Fortis” trademark to recover a part of the INR 4900 crore owed to Daiichi by the judgement debtors in the aftermath of the 2016 arbitral award (originally, as reported here, INR 3500 crores were awarded to Daiichi). The arbitral tribunal had held that the Ranbaxy promoters, Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh, had fraudulently misrepresented and concealed material facts about the

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court Directs to Auction “Fortis” Trademark in the Daiichi-Ranbaxy Dispute Read More »

Subjecting Free Speech to “Hero Worship”? Delhi High Court Passes Overbroad Injunction Order in Vishnu Manchu Case

/ By / Privacy, Trademark

[This post is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Yukta Chordia. Yukta is a 4th year BA LLB (Hons.) student at Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur and is passionate about Intellectual Property Law and Media and Entertainment Law, with a strong interest in ADR. Long post ahead.]  In a short order, both in length and (unfortunately) in reason, the Delhi High Court on October 1 granted an overbroad dynamic style interim injunction (pdf) to the Telugu film actor Vishnu Manchu (the plaintiff)

Subjecting Free Speech to “Hero Worship”? Delhi High Court Passes Overbroad Injunction Order in Vishnu Manchu Case Read More »

Claim Amendments Must Adhere to the Scope of Last Amended Claims, Clarifies the Controller

/ By / Patent

In an important order concerning claim amendments, the Controller has recently ruled that any new amendments to the claims cannot exceed the scope of the lastly amended claims. The decision was passed by Dr. S. P. Subramaniyan and concerned the patent application number 9790/ CHENP/ 2011 filed by M/s. Nippon Shinyaku Co. Ltd.  Here, the applicant originally filed 11 claims, with claims 1-3 related to crystal forms I, II, and III; claims 4-8 related to composition/product; and claims 9-11 related

Claim Amendments Must Adhere to the Scope of Last Amended Claims, Clarifies the Controller Read More »

Calcutta High Court Notifies IPD Rules: A Quick Comparison 

/ By / Copyright, Design, Geographical Indication, Patent, Plant Variety Protection, Trade Secret, Trademark

On September 20, the notification for the Calcutta High Court’s IP Division Rules were published in the Kolkata Gazette, making it the newest High Court, after Delhi and Madras, to have its own dedicated IP Division and relevant Rules. These Rules, officially called as “The Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, 2023”, (Cal HC IPD Rules or Final Rules) are drafted consequent to the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board via the Tribunal Reforms

Calcutta High Court Notifies IPD Rules: A Quick Comparison  Read More »

DHC Passed Over-broad Order in Louis Vuitton Advertisement Material Copyright Dispute

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

[This post is co-authored with Tejas Misra. Tejas is a third-year law student at National Law University, Delhi, and is interested in the evolution of IPR law and its growth in India. His previous posts can be accessed here.] On 21st August 2024, the Delhi High Court in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. http://www.haute24.com & Ors. issued a significant order directing for a permanent injunction and INR 5,00,000 as damages to Louis Vuitton for the unauthorized use of the brand’s copyrighted photos

DHC Passed Over-broad Order in Louis Vuitton Advertisement Material Copyright Dispute Read More »

From Bar to Bench: Three Advocates Recommended for the Delhi High Court, with Specific Mention of the IPD in the Collegium Resolution

/ By / Copyright, Design, Geographical Indication, Patent, Plant Variety Protection, Trade Secret, Trademark

On August 21, 2024, names of Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, and Ms. Shwetasree Majumder were recommended for appointment as Judges of the Delhi High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium. The names were recommended to the SC Collegium by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court in consultation with the two senior most judges of the High Court on October 25, 2023. In the detailed 4 page long collegium resolution, the SC Collegium finds the above

From Bar to Bench: Three Advocates Recommended for the Delhi High Court, with Specific Mention of the IPD in the Collegium Resolution Read More »

SpicyIP tidbit: Reports Suggest that Centre is Pulling Back the Contentious Broadcasting Bill

/ By / Others

As reported by Rishi Raj for the Financial Express on August 19, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has decided to withdraw the contentious Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill. Though it has been reported that the Bill is being withdrawn because the government feels that existing laws are sufficient to address any issues that may arise, the Bill was extensively criticised for muffling free speech in the country and imposing excessive checks on online content creators and social media influencers. Though I

SpicyIP tidbit: Reports Suggest that Centre is Pulling Back the Contentious Broadcasting Bill Read More »

CGPDTM Issues Order to Re-validate TM Orders Passed by Contractual Staff 

/ By / Trademark

In the aftermath of the very recent controversy surrounding the reports of Trademark orders being passed by contractual staff employed through the Quality Council of India (QCI), the CGPDTM has issued an office order (dt. August 13, 2024) explaining the mechanism to revalidate these orders. This office order comes in light of the DPIIT’s direction to form a committee of officers for the above exercise, as pointed out by Sabeeh in his post above.  As per the devised mechanism, two

CGPDTM Issues Order to Re-validate TM Orders Passed by Contractual Staff  Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: BHC Directs Patanjali to Pay Additional 4 Crores in a Trademark Infringement Dispute 

/ By / Trademark

[This tidbit is co-authored with Sumedh Gadham. Sumedh is a second-year law student enrolled at the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS). He is interested in intellectual property, tech law, and policy. His previous posts can be accessed here.] After being directed to deposit INR 50 lakhs, the Bombay High Court has reportedly imposed a hefty cost of INR 4 Crores on the company. As per the Livelaw’s report above, the Court, while disposing Mangalam Organics’ petition for contempt proceedings,

SpicyIP Tidbit: BHC Directs Patanjali to Pay Additional 4 Crores in a Trademark Infringement Dispute  Read More »

Scroll to Top