Showing 1 - 10 of 230 for "" with applied filters
22 January 2026 by
asialaw's Deal of the Month for January 2026 is...
22 January 2026 by
asialaw's Lawyer of the Month for January 2026 is...
22 January 2026 by
Undertaking by a promoter to infuse funds into a borrower company, cannot be treated as a contract of guarantee and thus does not amount to financial debt under the IBC.
25 November 2025 by
asialaw's Deal of the Month for November 2025 is...
25 November 2025 by
asialaw's Lawyer of the Month for November 2025 is...
25 November 2025 by
In a landmark moment for Indian intellectual property law, the Trademarks Registry has accepted for advertisement the country’s first olfactory trademark a floral fragrance reminiscent of roses as applied to tyres. The order represents a paradigm shift in how Indian law perceives and accommodates non-traditional trademarks. It also situates India firmly within an international conversation that has spanned more than three decades and continues to redefine the boundaries of trademark protection.
27 October 2025 by
By this Application, the Defendants seeks substitution of Defendant No. 2 and recording of the change of name of Defendant No. 3. The request for recording the change of name of Defendant No. 3 already stands allowed by order dated 25th September, 2025, passed by the Joint Registrar. As regards the substitution of Defendant No. 2, counsel for the Plaintiff, on instructions, submits that there is no objection to the same, as such substitution is in fact necessary for the effective resolution of the dispute. A separate application to that effect has also been filed.
14 October 2025 by
Summary: The Calcutta High Court’s ruling in the Pharmacyclics case clarifies that a divisional patent application can be filed as long as the invention is disclosed in the full specification, even if it was not included in the original claims.
17 September 2025 by
The Bombay High Court in Harkisandas Tulsidas Pabari & Anr. v. Rajendra Anandrao Acharya & Ors[1]. exercised its jurisdiction under Section 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) to dismiss the Arbitration Appeals filed by the Appellants and upheld the Order passed by the Single Judge under Section 34 of the Act which set aside Arbitral Award dated September 21, 2005 (“Impugned Award”) on the grounds that the (i) Arbitrator lacked authorisation to recommence the arbitral proceedings; (ii) Memorandum of Understanding dated July 20, 1994 (“MoU”) did not constitute a concluded contract between the parties and (iii) MoU was impossible of being specifically performed through execution of the Impugned Award.
17 September 2025 by
asialaw's Deal of the Month for September 2025 is...
