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.

Understanding Auxiliary Claims and Where They Come From 

/ By / Patent

A term that has of late frequently popped up in patent orders by the Indian Court without much explanation is “auxiliary claims”. Most recently, such claims were filed before the Delhi High Court (Immunolight v. Controller) (pdf), where the Court directed the Patent Office to hear the matter afresh in light of the auxiliary claims filed by Immunolight. For the uninitiated, the auxiliary claims refer to an alternative set of claims filed by the applicant when the main/ original set

Understanding Auxiliary Claims and Where They Come From  Read More »

Is One Nation One Subscription A Panacea for the Gap in Widespread Access to Knowledge?

/ By / Copyright, Innovation

[This post is co-authored with SpicyIP intern Shravya Pandre. Shravya is a third year BA.LLB. Hons. student at The National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad.]  By now most of our readers would have heard about the ambitious “One Nation One Subscription” (ONOS) initiative of the government. Approved on November 25 by the Union Cabinet, the momentous initiative aims to ensure access to scholarly works to nearly 1.8 Crore students, faculty members, researchers, and scientists (including the ones in

Is One Nation One Subscription A Panacea for the Gap in Widespread Access to Knowledge? Read More »

A Closer Look at the Patent Stats from WIPO’s 2024 IP Indicator

/ By / Patent

Recently, WIPO published its 2024 IP Indicator, capturing the trends in the global IP filing and their administration. The 2024 Indicator focuses on the developments from 2023 and compares it with the figures from 2022. As the name suggests, the report features facts and figures about different types of IPRs, but this post is limited to the numbers on Patents, specifically focusing on data about the Indian patent regime.  India Specific Figures More Applications and More Grants   The biggest highlight

A Closer Look at the Patent Stats from WIPO’s 2024 IP Indicator Read More »

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 »

Scroll to Top