Indian courts employ range of interim arrangements in IP litigation
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Indian courts employ range of interim arrangements in IP litigation

Pravin Anand and Prachi Agarwal of Anand and Anand evaluate the different interim orders available in IP infringement cases, including quia timet orders and John Doe orders

"Experimentation, with interim orders in patent infringement suits, is the need of the hour", stated the Delhi High Court in the recent order dated May 31 2019 in the suit number CS (COMM) 314/ 2019. As rightly stated, in many intellectual property (IP) disputes, a straitjacket ad interim injunction may not suffice or even be the appropriate relief. In many cases, satisfying the tripartite test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm and injury, may seem like a challenge. However, some interim arrangement or an order may still be necessary in order to balance the interests of both the parties involved.

It is not the first time that the courts have taken such a stance. In Novartis v Cipla, 2015 (61) PTC 363 (Del), the courts, while emphasising the need for interim arrangements held that if the defendant is allowed to manufacture the products protected under a patent without an interim arrangement, irreparable harm and inconvenience will be caused to the patentee, as it will encourage the generic companies to make the medicines of the invented products.

The House of Lords decision in American Cynamide v Ethicon, 1975 AC 396 has deliberated on the fact that prima facie case may in some contexts be an elusive concept. Lord Diplock further held that "the use of expressions as 'a probability', 'prima facie' or 'a strong prima facie case' in the context of the exercise of a discretionary power to grant an interlocutory injunction leads to confusion as to the object sought to be achieved by this form of temporary relief. The court no doubt must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious, in other words, that there is a serious question to be tried."

Over the years, the nature of interim relief has been moulded and shaped through various innovative orders. Indian Courts have been at the forefront of developing Indian jurisprudence and have exercised their inherent power to devise and grant innovative, fair, practical and reasonable principles, reliefs and procedures, paving the way to a wide ambit of legal prospects.

Some of the interim arrangements and orders that have been rendered, in lieu of grant or refusal of interim injunctions in IP disputes, are mentioned below:

Quia timet orders

Quia timet is Latin for "because he fears" and a quia timet action may be initiated when a patentee has a reasonable apprehension that an infringing product by the adversary may be launched and thus approaches the court, pre-emptively, prior to the launch of the product by the adversary which will cause irreparable harm to the patentee. There have been several cases where companies, among others, have adopted this approach and successfully obtained interim injunctions preventing the launch of infringing generic products. Quia timet actions have proved to be very beneficial for expeditious disposal of matters, discovery and disclosure of information from the adversary etc. and a direction to the adversary to inform the court prior to such launch. Such actions have become maintainable, as held in the case of Bristol-Myers Squibb & Anr. v VC Bhutada & Ors., vide Order dated 19/12/2008 in CS(OS) No. 2680 of 2008 before the Delhi High Court and further followed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Teva v Natco, 2014 (59) PTC 124 (Del).

Status Quo Orders

Another type of order that is being passed is the Status Quo order where the defendant may be restrained from the launch of the product in the market until further orders, or prevented from engaging in any new activity relating to the cause of action until further orders. This type of order illustrates the balance of interests, as while the defendant does not have the inconvenience of shutting down his existing business, he may be restrained from claiming any new right until final adjudication of the matter.

Expedited trial

The concept of an expedited and time-bound trial was expounded for the first time in the case of Bajaj Auto Company v TVS Motor Company, 2009(41) PTC 398 (SC). An expedited trial could safely be viewed as a measure to ensure that a party affected by the grant or denial of an ad interim injunction does not suffer for years to come, awaiting the outcome of the controversy, after a full-fledged trial. The concept of expedited trial has been extensively followed. It received even more attention when the Supreme Court vide order dated May 15 2015 in an appeal pending against the grant of an injunction, in a patent infringement suit filed by Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. directed day to day recording of evidence and completion of trial by a certain date, including strict directions to the litigants and the officers of the court and a pre-determined time schedule for the final arguments.

Rendition of accounts/bank guarantee

There have been instances where the court has directed the defendant to either maintain records of accounts or furnish a security bond with the court in lieu of non-grant of an interim injunction or stayed the operation of an interim injunction on this basis. Recently, in the case of Biogen International GmBH v Jayesh Shah (INTAS), as recorded in the order dated May 29 2019, the defendant had submitted that the injunction operating against it be modified since there existed a demand for DYFIRA 120 mg which was not being met by the plaintiff and thus, in public interest it should be allowed to manufacture and supply 17,000 capsules of DYFIRA 120 mg to needy patients. The judge was willing to consider this request and modify the injunction if the defendant agreed to deposit a bank guarantee which was equivalent to the difference in the prices of the plaintiff's product and the defendant's product, which the defendant refused to give.

John Doe orders

Indian courts have in numerous decisions granted John Doe interim orders which have proved to be a useful mechanism to resolve cases of mass infringement by unnamed parties who are carrying on their infringing activities in a clandestine manner. For the first time in the case of Tej Television Limited v Rajan Mandal, [2003] FSR 24, the Delhi High Court recognised the nature of cable piracy and passed a John Doe order appointing court commissioners to search the premises of unnamed infringers in the same locality and seize evidence by taking photographs and videos. In subsequent cases, the courts have also granted rolling John Doe orders where the John Doe orders have continued to operate for a period of one or two months and in some cases, even been restricted to an area, depending upon the issue in dispute.

Anton-Pillar orders

An Anton Pillar order is a court order which requires the defendant in proceedings to permit the plaintiff or his or her legal representatives to enter the defendant's premises in order to obtain evidence essential to the plaintiff's case and may be granted at an ex parte thereby adding a surprise element to such inspection, search and seizure. In the absence of an ex parte appointment of a local commissioner there is likelihood that such evidence may be lost, removed or destroyed. The objective of an Anton Pillar order is not so much to collect evidence, but to preserve it.

Mareva injunction order

In the case of WWE Inc. v Vinayak Sodhi & Ors., CS (OS) 2435 of 2011, vide order dated September 29 2011, the courts, due to the peculiar nature of online bank transactions and under the belief that the defendant on receipt of the injunction order is likely to withdraw the amount deposited in its bank account with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, directed the bank to freeze the bank account belonging to the defendant. In another case, HCL Technologies Ltd. & Anr. v Ajay Kumar & Ors, CS (COMM) 466/2017, vide order dated July 18 2017 the defendants were directed to freeze the said accounts which they had opened to defraud people. Additionally, as the defendants were operating Paytm accounts to cheat the job aspirants, the hon'ble judge also directed the freezing of all the Paytm accounts of the defendants.

Direction to statutory/regulatory authorities

In vide order dated July 13 2018 in Colgate Palmolive Company v John Doe & ors. – CS (COMM) NO.1009 OF 2018, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a trademark infringement suit directed the concerned customs officials to immediately freeze the contents of the concerned ship (containing large quantities of infringing toothbrushes bearing the mark COLDENT) and container and to divulge the details of the goods contained therein, the details of the exporter and importer, the value and number of goods etc. to the plaintiffs to ensure that the matter reaches its logical conclusion.

Orders to promote public interest

As a new wave of reform, the courts have been passing orders to promote public interest. In one of the recent orders dated March 11 2019 in Merck sharp & Dohme Corp & Anr v Abhayakumar Deepak & Anr., CONT. CAS (C) 846/2018, the contemnors were directed to plant 1,40,000 trees on the Central Ridge of New Delhi. The court was of the opinion that the cost imposed may be utilised for "larger public good". In another case Hermes International & Anr. v Riyaaz Nasruddin Amlani & Ors., CONT. CAS (C) 660/2018 & CM No. 9044/2019 vide order dated March 26 2019, in view of the violation of the orders of the court, the court imposed cost on the contemnors directing them that the same would be spent towards the benefit of adolescent girls attending government schools, under-privileged girls in orphanages and for meeting the needs of other school-going children. Further, the wronged party could claim the benefit of the aforesaid, in their corporate social responsibility account. Such orders serve the plural purpose of penalising the wrongdoer, compensating the wronged party in the form of benefit towards corporate social responsibility and promoting public interest and public good.

As rightly stated, an interim arrangement is the need of the hour. Some of the reasons for passing such orders are mentioned below:

1) If the adversary is allowed to continue with the activity which is allegedly infringing the rights of the IP holder, it may destroy the right holder's business and market, leading to prices spiralling down from which the right holder may never be able to recover. In such cases, it is challenging to assess the quantum of damages when the matter is finally decided.

2) If the defendant is allowed to continue with the activity which is allegedly infringing the rights of the IP holder, there may be a snowball effect and it would encourage other market players, generic companies and business owners to indulge in such a practice. Thus, the damage in such cases can be irreparable and irreversible.

3) As rightly adopted and relied upon by various courts as well as the Apex Court, Supreme Court of India, no-one should be allowed to benefit from his own wrong, as per the Latin maxim "commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet." In other words, convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong. Thus, if an infringer has not cleared the path before launching its product or engaging in an act and despite knowledge of the right holder's IP, has proceeded with their activities, it is imperative for the court to protect the right holder until final adjudication of the matter.

4) The decision on whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the rights or violation of the rights are uncertain and will remain uncertain until final adjudication on the matter. Thus, with such uncertainty about the final outcome, the court, at best, can only mitigate the risk of the right holder and also protect the alleged infringer from injustice which is the reason why the aforesaid orders have become powerful tools at the interim stage of hearing.

5) Interim arrangements also necessitate that the parties do not reap the fruits of delay of adjudication.

6) An order has to be passed to balance the interests of both parties. Thus, it may need to be more than just a denial or grant of an injunction. The courts have to strike a balance between two extreme positions i.e. grant of interim order, on the one hand, and the enormity of losses and hardship which may be suffered by others if an interim order is refused, particularly having regard to the fact that in such an event, the losses sustained by the affected parties may not be redeemable.

7) A right holder has invested in years of research and development and has spent a large amount on promotional activities, generating sales and building immense goodwill towards creating its IP. The right holder has even protected its IP after undergoing elaborate procedures and scrutiny at IP offices. Thus, the right holder ought to be appropriately awarded.


「実験として、特許権侵害訴訟での仮命令が現在必要とされている」デリー高等裁判所は訴訟番号 CS(COMM)314/2019の2019年5月31日付の最近の命令でこう述べた。これに述べられるように、多くの知的財産権紛争では、拘束と臨時命令だけでは十分でなく適切な救済ではない。多くの場合に、prima facie事件の三要素テストを満たすこと、便宜および回復不能な損害のバランスは困難に見える。しかし、含まれる両当事者のエクイティの平衡を保つために臨時措置あるいは命令が必要となる場合がある。

裁判所がこうしたスタンスをとったのは初めてのことではない。2015(61)PTC 363(Del)Novartis v Cipla事件で、裁判所は臨時措置の必要を強調し、次のことを判決した。被告が臨時措置なく特許の下で保護された製品を製造することを認められる場合特許所有者に、回復不能な損害および不自由がもたらされ、ジェネリック会社により発明された薬の類似品製造を促進する。

American Cynamide v Ethicon, 1975 AC 396の第三審裁判所決定では、prima-facie 事件がいくつかのコンテキストの中で捉えがたい概念でありうるという事実に基づいて審議が行われた。Diplock卿は、仮処分の自由裁量行使のコンテキスト中の「見込み」「prima facie」あるいは「強いprima facie 事件」としての表現の使用は、この形式の一時的救済によって達成を目指す対象物を混乱させる」とした。裁判所は疑問なく、クレームが些末なものでないことを確認する必要がある。言いかえれば重大問題が存在する。」




「Quia timet」はラテン語で「おそれがある」を意味する。特許所有者が相手による特許所有者に対する回復不能な損害をもたらす製品の発売に先立って、相手による侵害製品が売り出されるかもしれないという合理的な懸念を持ち、このように裁判所に要求する場合、quia timet措置を開始できる。いくつかの事件で、会社が侵害するジェネリック商品発売を防ぐためにこのアプローチを採用しおよび暫定命令を得ることに成功した。Quia timetアクションは、問題、発見および相手からの情報開示などの迅速な処分で、着手に先立って裁判所に通知することで非常に有益であることが明らかになった。このような措置は、Bristol-Myers Squibb & Anr. v VC Bhutada & Ors., vide 、デリー高等裁判所CS(OS) No. 2680 of 2008 の19/12/2008付命令のとおり可能になっており、さらに Teva v Natco, 2014 (59) PTC 124 (Del)のデリー高等裁判所の区分ベンチでもこれにならっている。

Status Quo 命令

もう一つの種類の命令はStatus Quo 命令であり、被告は別途命令が下るまで、市場での製品発売あるいは訴訟の原因に関係する任意の新しい活動に従事することを制限される。これらの命令の種類は、エクイティとのバランスを示し、被告の既存のビジネスを妨げてはならない一方、係争事項の最終裁決まで新しい権利要求を制限される。


簡易裁判と時間制限裁判の概念は、Bajaj Auto Company v TVS Motor Company, 2009(41) PTC 398 (SC).で初めて解釈された。簡易裁判は、臨時命令の許可か否認によって影響を受ける当事者が、完全な裁判で論争の結果が出るまで今後何年もかけずにすむことを保証する手段として見ることができる。簡易裁判の概念は、広範囲で取り入れられた。Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation がGlenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.を訴えた特許権侵害訴訟での禁止命令の許可に対する訴えの保留で、2015年5月15日付最高裁判所命令を参照し、証拠の毎日の録音、および特定の日付での裁判完了の指図が行われ、訴訟当事者および関係職員に、最終弁論での裁判所および前もって定義した時間スケジュールの厳密な指示を含めたことがその節目となった。


裁判所が臨時の命令の非許可やこの根拠に対する臨時差し止め命令ではなく被告に口座記録維持と裁判所に証券寄託を指図した実例がある。最近2019年5月29日付で記録された、 Biogen International GmBH v Jayesh Shah (INTAS)場合には、被告は原告が満たせないDYFIRA 120mgの需要が存在したため、それらに対して禁止命令修正を申し立て、その結果、公益のため、貧困患者にDYFIRAの17,000のカプセル剤を120mg製造し供給することが認められた。裁判官は喜んでこのリクエストを考慮し、被告が、原告の製品および被告の製品(被告が拒絶したもの)の価格差と等価の銀行保証に合意することを条件に、禁止命令を修正した。


インドの裁判所は、ジョン・ドゥー仮命令が、秘密裏に活動を侵害し続けている無名の当事者による多量侵犯の事件を解決する、有用なメカニズムであることを多数の決定で認めている。デリー高等裁判所は、Tej Television Limited vs. Rajan Mandal, [2003] FSR 24で初めてケーブル著作権侵害の性質を認識し、ジョン・ドウ命令によって同じ地点の無名の侵害者の敷地の家宅捜索と、写真とビデオ証拠収集をさらに認めるよう求めた。後の事件では、裁判所は、連続ジョン・ドウ命令で、1あるいは2か月の期間の間ジョン・ドウ命令が有効となり、さらに一部の場合には論争での問題に応じエリアを制限した。


アントン・ピラー命令は、訴訟手続きで原告または法定代理人が原告の事件に不可欠な証拠を得るために被告の家宅捜索を可能にすることを被告に要求する裁判所命令で、 ex parteで認められ、そのような査察、捜査および押収に意外な要素を加えた。地方の委員にex parteがない状態では、そのような証拠は失われ、削除され、隠滅されるかもしれない可能性がある。アントン・ピラー命令の目的は証拠を集めることではなく保全することである。


WWE Inc. vs. Vinayak Sodhi & Ors., CS (OS) 2435 of 2011,の事件で、2011年9月29日付けの命令で、裁判所は、ネット銀行処理の特有の性質、および禁止命令により被告が原告のクレームに対向し、その銀行口座金額を引き出そうとするという確信の下で、被告が所有している銀行口座の凍結を銀行に命令した。別の事件で、 HCL Technologies Ltd. & Anr.Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors, CS (COMM) 466/2017, 、2017年7月18日付で、被告の詐取を目的に開いた前述の口座凍結命令を行った。さらに、被告が志望者を欺くためにPaytmアカウントを操作していたため、Hon'ble裁判官はさらに被告のPaytmアカウントをすべて凍結するよう命令した。


2018年7月13日付けのColgate Palmolive Company v. John Doe & ors.– CS (COMM) NO.1009 OF 2018, 命令で、商標権侵害訴訟でのHon'bleデリー高等裁判所は、問題がその論理的な結論に達することを保証するため、関係する船舶およびコンテナの内容(COLDENTのマークをつけた大量の、権利侵害歯ブラシを含む)を直ちに凍結し、さらにそこに含まれていた品物の詳細、輸出者と輸入者の詳細、品物の価値および数量を原告に報告するよう税関検査官に命令した。


新たな改革として、裁判所は、公益促進命令を行っている。最近の命令のうちの1つでは2019年3月11日にMerck sharp & Dohme Corp & Anr v. Abhayakumar Deepak & Anr., CONT.。CAS(C)846/2018ではニューデリーのセントラルリッジに140,000の木を植えることを指示された。裁判所は、課されたコストが「より大きな公益」のために利用できるという見解であった。別の事件でHermes International & Anr. v. Riyaaz Nasruddin Amlani & Ors., CONT.CAS (C) 660/2018 & CM No. 9044/2019 、2019年3月26日では、裁判所の命令への違反を考慮して、被告に対し、政府の学校に通う思春期の少女や孤児院にいる恵まれない少女の利益、およびその他学校に通う児童のニーズを満たすための費用負担を命令した。さらに、原告は、自身のCSR口座に前述の利益を要求することができた。このような命令は、加害者に刑罰を課するうえで複数の目的を果たす。すなわち、CSRへの利益という形での被害者への賠償と公益促進である。


1. 知的財産ホルダーの権利を侵害している活動を継続することが認められれば、権利者のビジネスおよび市場を破壊し権利者が回復できない価格の下降に結びつくおそれがある。そのような場合、問題が最後に解決された場合、損害の考慮が困難となる。

2. 被告が、知的財産ホルダーの権利を侵害している活動を継続することを認められれば、結果が指数的に増大し、また、その他市場関係者、ジェネリック会社および事業主に同様の行動を促進する。したがって、そのような場合損害は回復不能で不可逆的になりうる。

3. アペックス裁判所、インドの最高裁判所に加え、様々な裁判所によって適切に採用され、かつ、その拠り所とされてているとおり、また、ラテン語の格言「ommodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet」で言われているように、何人も不法行為から利益を得ることを認められていない。言いかえれば、自分の不法行為から利益は得られない。したがって、侵害者がその製品を売り出す、または行為の準備をしておらず、正しい権利者の知的財産についての知識を持っているにもかかわらず、その活動を続けた場合、裁判所が問題の最終裁決まで権利者を保護することは避けられない。

4. 権利あるいは権利の妨害の有無が不確かで、問題の最終裁決まで不確かなままである場合は、仮処分決定が必要になる。したがって、最終結果にこうした不確実性があることで、裁判所は、権利者と被告のリスクを緩和することができるだけでなく、不正から保護することもでき、そしてこれが、聴聞の段階で前述の臨時命令が強力なツールになった理由でもある。

5. 臨時命令は、さらに当事者が裁決の遅れから利益を得ないようにするものである。

6. こうした一時措置は両当事者のエクイティおよび利益の平衡を保つためのものである。したがって、これは単なる命令の可否を越えるものである必要がある。裁判所は2つの極端な立場の間で比較検討を行わなければならない。一方では仮命令の許可、そして仮命令が却下された場合、その他に及ぶ困難、特に影響を受ける当事者に、損失が回復不能となりうる事実である。

7. 権利者は数年間の研究開発に投資し、販売を生成し、その知的財産の作成に多大な労力を払い、宣伝活動に多額の費用を費やした。権利者は、さらに知財事務所で膨大な手続きを行い、かつ、調査の後に知的財産を保護した。したがって、権利者は、適切な見返りを得るべきである。

Pravin Anand



Pravin Anand, managing partner at Anand and Anand, has been a counsel in several landmark IP cases, including those involving the first Anton Piller order (HMV), first Mareva injunction order (Philips), India's first SEP litigation in a DVD player technology matter (Philips), pre-suit mediation litigation involving Nokia, first Norwich Pharmacal order (Hollywood Cigarettes), moral rights of artists (Amarnath Sehgal), first order under the Hague Convention (Astra Zeneca), and several other significant cases. His innovative and creative approach towards IP is reflected in the pioneering initiatives in which the firm has been involved, developing unique IP concepts including an IP board game, India's first IP themed play Brainchild, an IP comic – Adventures of Mr IP, a compilation of legendary IP matters in the form of a coffee table book IPONOMICS, and others.

He has received many prominent awards and accolades, including being the first Indian legal practitioner to receive the AIPPI Award of Merit, Most Innovative Lawyer – Asia Pacific (FT Innovative Lawyers Awards 2015), as well as many others.

Pravin AnandはAnand and Anandのマネージングパートナーで、Anton Piller 命令(HMV)、 First Mareva 差止命令(Phillips)、インド初のDVDプレーヤー技術問題をめぐるSEP訴訟(Phillips)、ノキアに関係する訴訟前仲裁、First Norwich Pharmacal 命令(Hollywood Cigarettes)、著作者人格権に関する訴訟(Amarnath Sehgal)、ハーグ条約下の最初の命令(Astra Zeneca) その他重要な事件を含め、複数の画期的な知財案件で代理人を務めた経験を有します。同氏の革新的、かつ、創造的な知財へのアプローチは事務所の先駆的な取り組みに反映されています。「IPボードゲーム」、インド最初の知財をテーマとした演劇『Brainchild』、知財コミックアドベンチャー『Adventure of Mr. IP(IP氏の冒険)』、伝説に残るほど有名なIP問題の集大成である大型豪華本『IPONOMICS』などをはじめとするユニークな知財コンセプトを開発してきました。

AIPPI Award of Merit', Most Innovative Lawyer – Asia Pacific(FT Innovative Lawyers Awards 2015) をインドで始めて受賞したほか、数々の重要な賞と栄誉に輝いています。

Prachi Agarwal



Prachi Agarwal obtained her BSc LLB from the National Law University, Jodhpur (Rajasthan), India in 2007 and her LLM from George Washington University in 2008. She is currently working in the litigation department of Anand and Anand. She is actively involved in intellectual property litigation, including patents, trademarks, copyright and designs and also provides clients with legal advice on intellectual property law matters. She previously worked at an IP law firm based in Virginia, USA and is licensed to practise in the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA and India.

Prachi involves herself in public engagements, most notably she has spoken to entrepreneurs and students at Banasthali Vidyapith about how businesses should build their brand and manage their IP.

Prachi Agarwalは2007年にインドのジョドプルにあるインドナショナル・ロー・ユニバーシティで理学士(BSc)と法学士(LL.B)を取得し 、2008年にジョージワシントン大学で法学修士号(LL.M)を取得しています。現在はインドのニューデリーを本拠とする知的財産法律事務所Anand and Anand訴訟部門に所属しています。特許、商標、著作権および意匠を含む知的財産訴訟に積極的に関与し、さらに、クライアントに知的財産法の問題に関する法的助言を提供しています。以前は米国バージニア州DitthavongのMori and Steiner知財法事務所に勤務し、米国バージニア州とインドにおける弁理士資格を有します。

Prachi は公的活動にも意欲的に取り組み、特にビジネスの知財ブランディングと知財管理について、Banasthali Vidyapith で起業家や学生を対象とした講演を行っています。

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Tamara Moll discusses solving the mysteries of the universe over lunch, desk dancing, and why even old cookie recipes could benefit from IP love
Women leaders at four firms discuss how they handle clients' diversity requirements and build strong teams
The new head of Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick outlines his vision for the firm and explains why D&I measures need constant work
Based on surveys covering more than 25,000 in-house lawyers, the series provides insights into what law firms must score highly on when pitching to in-house counsel
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tony Nguyen, who returned to Fish & Richardson this month after a year travelling overseas, tells Managing IP how and why he took the plunge
Tom Treutler, who previously managed the Vietnamese office of Tilleke & Gibbins, has joined East IP
Counsel discuss upcoming AI and data privacy legislation and what they’ve learned since Chile joined the Madrid Protocol
INTA has postponed its planned Annual Meeting in Dubai, but the organisation should think carefully about whether it wants to go there at all
The firm has named its new managing director after its former Asia head resigned earlier this year
Gift this article