Aswal Associates is a full service IP law firm in India with International focus and clientele. The firm specializes in Patents, Trademarks, Design. Geographical Indiacations and Copyrights besides commercial & corporate law and litigation. The members of the firm have extensive experience and proven expertise in their respective fields.
The firm has its main office at Dwarka, New Delhi and located closed to IP Office at New Delhi, India. Besides, New Delhi the firm is having associate/branch offices, representatives and affiliates in major cities of India i.e. Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Ahmadabad as well as outside India (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka)
Various services provide by the firm in field of Intellectual property are as follows:
PATENTS:
TRADEMARKS:
INDUSTRIALDESIGN
COPYRIGHT
Geographical indications:
Beside Intellectual Property the firm also provides services in other fields of law mainly:
ADVERTISING & PROMOTION LAWS
The firm advices its clients on Advertising as well as promotional laws in respect of all kinds of media print, electronic etc. The firm handles queries in relation to labelling as well as packing laws. The firm advices on the online promotion and prepares as well as vets official rules for promotional events.
ARBITRATION
The firm advices clients on the laws of domestic and international arbitration in India. We assist clients in enforcement of arbitral awards, challenging an arbitral award (domestic). We also appear before the arbitrators and arbitral tribunals on behalf of our clients.
BANKING LAWS & TAXATION
The firm expertises in handling matters relating to secured as well as unsecured loan, mortgage, Negotiable Instruments and regularly appears before the Courts, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, BIFR, AAIFR as well as Banking Ombudsman.
The firm also assists its clients in filing direct and indirect tax returns as well as assists in matter before the Tax tribunals and Courts.
BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL LAWS
The firm also advices its clients on a wide range of issues relating to law of Contract, Company law etc.
The firm undertakes drafting as well as vetting to contracts, agreements, Memorandum of Understanding.
The firm also advises on transactions including acquisitions or disposals, corporate restructures, takeovers, mergers and joint ventures, Foreign Direct Investment etc.
CONSUMER LAWS
The members of the firm are adept in handling all kinds of consumer matters before the consumer foras and commissions.
CYBER AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAWS
The firm also advices its clients on various issues relating to Cyber laws, data protections and data theft etc.
DOMAIN DISPUTES
The firm also handles issues pertaining to domain disputes.
EDUCATION
The firm specialises in advising its clients as to establishments of colleges, institutes and other bodies in the field of higher and technical education both in formal as well as informal education. The services includes advising as well as vetting MOA and agreements, course modules as per the guidelines of the statutory bodies and representing before the statutory authorities.
LITIGATION
The firm undertakes litigation on touching upon all the laws of India. We file and defend almost all kind of civil, criminal & commercial suits, petitions, revisions, appeals, writs, PIL's and appear before all District courts, tribunals, Commissions, High Court and the Supreme Court and other quasi judicial bodies.
The Advocates Act, 1961 as well as Rules of Bar Council does not allow lawyer/attorney to advertise their profile and expertise. Therefore identity, expertise and other details of IP Professionals/ attorneys/ lawyers/ advocates and other non- advocate professionals are provided only on request.
For detailed profile send a request to info@aswal.com
Office of CGPDTM extends deadline for all IP matters from March 15, 2020 till further orders by Supreme Court of India or High Courts
Delhi HIgh Court extends deadline for various IP deadlines till further orders or the next date of hearing i.e. July 30, 2020
Delhi High Court stays Public Notice dated May 18, 2020 and May 20, 2020 by Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks extends deadlines for matters falling due between March 15, 2020 to May 17, 2020 to June 1, 2020
Supreme Court extends deadlines for limitations from March 15, 2020 to 15 days after end of lockdown
Delhi High Court stays Public notice dated May 4, 2020 by Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
IPAB to commence hearings for urgent matters through video conferencing
Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks extended deadlines for matters falling between March 18, 2020 to May 17, 2020
Controller General of Patents, Design and Trademarks extended deadline to May 3, 2020
Supreme Court of India Suo Moto extended deadlines with effect from March 15, 2020
Vide public notice no. 15 of 2012 dated July 2, 2012, the Controller General has simplified process of filing of PCT national phase Applications in India specially where PCT Application is published in English Language.
salient features of the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 as applicable for foreign Applicant in India
Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place.
Mere posting of the letter on the website does not constitute communication of the objection or proposal in writing as required by Rule 38(4) of Trade Marks Rules, 2002. The Mumbai HC held that placing the notice of the website does not constitute compliance with that Rule 38(4) of the said Rules.
Object of grant of patent is to encourage scientific research, new technology and industrial progress and for that object exclusive privilege is granted. At the same time before awarding patent for any invention it has to be considered that the invention must be novel, must involve an inventive step and must have industrial application.
The expression “inventive step” is predominantly used for instance in European Union while the expression “non- obviousness” is predominantly used in United States of America. The assessment of the inventive step and non-obviousness varies from one country to another while the underlying basic principal remains the same.
Delhi high court upheld Judgement directing restoration and renewal of trademark MBD, 29 years after due date of renewal. Notice on form O3 is must intimating the registered proprietor about the deadline of renewal and consequence thereof.
Section 33 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that if the earlier Registered Proprietor has acquiesced for a continuous period of 5 years in the use of a registered trademark, being aware of that use, he is not entitled to either seek invalidation of such later mark or oppose its use in relation to goods or services in relation to which it has been so used, unless registration of such mark was applied in bad faith.
Definition: Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.
Trade dress refers to characteristics of the visual or sensual appearance of a product that may also include its packaging which may be registered and protected from being used by competitors in relation to their business and services.
The Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed...
Delhi High Court in Double Coin Holdings Ltd. Vs. Trans Tyres (India) Pvt. Ltd. elaborately dealt with the issue as to who has right over a trademark, manufacturer or distributor/ importer
Delhi High Court held amendment in claims as allowed in another suit can not be allowed in a pending suit without amending plaint.
Computer Software & Business Method Patents In India: India does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme “per se” or algorithms.
Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.To interpret the doctrine of obviousness it is necessary to first understand the objective of grant of Patent.
"Non-obviousness" is the term for “inventive step” used in US patent law and codified under 35 U.S.C. §103. Thereby implying that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.
Inventions pertaining to microorganisms and other Biological material were subjected to product patent in India unlike many developed countries. But with effect from 20.05.2003 India has started granted patents to invention related to microorganisms.
Compulsory Licence For Patents In India: Any interested person after expiry of 3 years from grant of patent even though if he is a license under the patent, may make an application to the Controller for grant of compulsory license
The Government of India is finalising a system that will prevent generic manufactures from getting marketing approval to sell patented drugs in India.
India like European Union does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme "per se" or algorithms. The relevant provision under the Indian Patents Act reads as under...
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Indian arm of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd had challenged the constitutionality of India's customs regulations governing the import of IP goods in Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition. More precisely it has challenged the custom notification no. 47/2007 Customs (N.T.) dated 08.05.2007 called Intellectual Property Right (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place.
Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by joining two causes of action in the same suit when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in respect of one cause of action and not the other.
Supreme Court held that a composite suit would not entitle a court to entertain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise. Order 2 Rule 3 of the Code specifically states so and, thus, there is no reason as to why the same should be ignored.
Supreme Court held that for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a court only because two causes of action joined in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same would not mean that thereby the jurisdiction can be conferred upon a court which had jurisdiction to try only the suit in respect of one cause of action and not the other. Recourse to the additional forum, however, in a given case, may be taken if both the causes of action arise within the jurisdiction of the
5 Bench of Supreme Court held that Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
Delhi High Court held that written permit in terms of Section 39 is a mandatory requirement for filing Application outside India and therefore PCT application, even if complete in all other respects cannot be given a filing date earlier than the date on which the written permit in terms of Section 39 is issued.
The Chennai High Court held that the time prescribed under Rule 20 for filing national phase PCT Application in India is 31 months from priority date, and the period, which could be extended by taking into consideration of facts and circumstances, is one month under Rule 138. The application for extension is required to be made within the period prescribed. Therefore, proviso would come into operation for the purpose of calculating period of one month. On true interpretation of rule 138, it is h
The Controller of Patents Granted India’s first Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited in respect of Patent no. 215758 of Bayer Corporation.
Delhi High Court set Guidelines to determine jurisdiction in Internet related cases
Kolkata High Court held no interim order if no economic loss shown by disparaging advertisement
Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Appeal to set aside injunction in declaratory suit
Agreeing with Single Judge's Consideration to adverse impact of grant of injunction on life saving drugs Delhi High Court imposed Cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs on Appellant
Supreme Court allows appeal of Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. owner of FM Radia “Radio Mirchi” against M/s Super Cassette Industries Ltd owner of “T-Series” and refers matter back to Copyright Board for compulsory license
Supreme Court of India, Appeal against Pre Grant opposition order to be heard by High Court though Patent Act amended and IPAB came into existence
Delhi High Court declines Cadila Healthcare's plea to restrain use of 'Sugar Free'
Supreme Courts Bars Challenge To “Peter Scot” On Principles Of Acquiescence And/ Or Waiver
Supreme Court allowed temporary breather against criminal prosecution for “lakhani” for false lodging complaint under copyright as well as trademark act
Passing off action can be instituted in case of Registered Design, but a composite suit for infringement and passing off of design would not lie
Delhi High Court vacated interim injunction and directs defendants to maintain accounts of manufacture, sale and supply
United States Patents and Trademarks Office has awarded “MIGHTY MOUSE” trademark to Man & Machine causing Apple to Abandon it for its products
No balance of convenience or irreparable loss Chennai High Court set aside Injunction granted by Single Judge of High Court
In four clubbed cases by Microsoft Corporation against different defendants Delhi High Court allowed ex parte stay and directed Microsoft to pay cost security in case allegations of copyright piracy found speculative
Full Bench Delhi High Court held that existence of a design registered abroad in a convention country is not a ground under Section 19(1)(a) for cancellation of a design registered in India. Further registered design if intentionally brought into the public domain without any breach of faith, no longer remains new as per provisions of Indian Design Act.
Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed, held that Challenge to a provision accrued before it is repealed is maintainable if the repealing act is silent
Mumbai High Court (DB) held that mere posting of the letter on website does not constitute communication of objection as required by rule 38(4) under the Trademark Rules.
Delhi High Court in a Letter Patent Appeal upheld the single Judge Order that issuance of notice on Form O3 mandatory before removing the mark. Restoration period to be counted from date of removal from Register not from due date of renewal
Injunction can also be sought in case of threatened use of a Trademark
Amendment of claims in infringement Suit not permissible without amending the plaint even if such amendment has been allowed in some earlier suit
In Re: BERNARD L. BILSKI; United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lays down mahcine transformation test for business method patents
One of the oldest Judgments related to denial of Copyright in Design for prior use passed by Kolkata High Court
Delhi High Court held no exclusive rights over descriptive/ common words
Delhi High Court on Appeal held that suit once instituted by a litigant, has to be disposed of strictly as per the procedure prescribed in the Code and not in a cursory or summary fashion
Madras High Court held that Plaintiff is not entitled for injunction and instead issued directions to respondents to maintain accounts of the TV mega serial Thangam in Tamil which is being screened till the serial is over and file the statement of accounts in respect of the episodes already screened and also in respect of the serials produced in any other language on the basis of the same script, to maintain and file statement of accounts when they are called upon to produce.
Supreme Court of India rejects Novartis Patent for Beta Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate being violative of Section 2(1) (j), (ja) as well as 3(d) of Indian Patent Act in view of the earlier Patent for Imatinib free salt
70th Council Meeting of Asian Patent Attorneys Association was held in Taipei, Taiwan from November 9 to November 12, 2020
India
Bhutan
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Nepal
Maldives
Pakistan
Worldwide
