Contact us

 

Contact Us

Speak with our IP specialists for an initial assessment of your patent, trademark, design, or copyright matter.

Whether you are an individual inventor, a growing startup, or a multinational managing a global portfolio, our team responds to every enquiry within 24 business hours.

Our Office

ASWAL ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law & Intellectual Property
59, Harmony Apartments, Pocket-1, Sector-4,
Dwarka, New Delhi – 110078, INDIA

Email: info@aswal.com
Phone: +91-11-4304 6500
Web: www.aswal.com

Our office is conveniently located near the Indian Patent Office, New Delhi.

Send Us an Enquiry

Please share a brief description of your matter — the type of IP right involved (patent, trademark, design, or copyright), the jurisdictions of interest, and any relevant deadlines. All enquiries are treated as confidential.

Email Our Team

International Clients & Associates

We work with foreign law firms, IP agents, and in-house counsel seeking coordinated filings and enforcement in India, South Asia, and ASEAN. For associate enquiries, please write to info@aswal.com with the subject line “Associate Enquiry.”

Disclaimer: The contents of this page are for general information only and do not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by contacting the firm through this page; please do not send confidential information until a formal engagement is established.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024: What the New Flexibility Gives You — and the Hard Deadlines It Cannot Touch

Introduction On 15 March 2024, the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024 came into force and quietly rewrote the rhythm of patent prosecution in India. Practitioners who had spent two decades telling clients "this deadline cannot be extended, full stop" suddenly found themselves revising standard advice: many timelines that were once immovable can now be bought back, at a price, under the liberalised Rule 138. But here lies the trap — and it is a trap that has already caught applicants who read the headlines and not the fine print. The 2024 amendments are subordinate legislation made under Section 159 of the Patents Act, 1970. They can soften only those timelines that live in the Rules . Where the Act itself fixes a period and attaches a consequence — "deemed abandoned," "deemed withdrawn," "shall not be entertained" — no Rule, however generously worded, can rescue a defaulting applicant. Only Parliament can. This article does two things. First, it wal...
Read more

Myanmar's New Trademark Law: A Shift Toward a Modern Registration System

On January 30, 2019, the Parliament of Myanmar passed the country's first modern Trademark Law, marking a significant step toward aligning Myanmar's intellectual property regime with international standards. This legislation will replace the existing practice—under which trademark rights are secured merely by registering a Declaration of Ownership with the Office of the Registration of Deeds—with a formal, examination-based trademark registration system. To administer this new regime, Myanmar will establish an Intellectual Property Office ("IPO") under the Ministry of Commerce. Transition for Existing Registrations Recognizing that numerous trademarks are already on record under the old declaration-based system, the IPO will introduce a "soft-opening" period, commencing in January 2020, during which owners of existing registrations may re-file their marks with the IPO. This re-filing window will remain open for six (6) months, and re-filed marks will be a...
Read more

Jurisdiction Under Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act: The Supreme Court's Ruling in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia

The Question Before the Court In Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia , the Supreme Court was called upon to settle a recurring and commercially significant question: where a plaintiff's principal place of business is at a location where the cause of action has also arisen, can the plaintiff nonetheless choose to sue at a different place — typically the location of a branch office — merely because it also carries on business there? The Court answered this decisively in the negative, holding that Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 must be construed purposively, and that a plaintiff residing or carrying on business at a place where the cause of action has also wholly or partly arisen must institute the suit at that place. The Statutory Scheme Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure ordinarily determines where a suit may be filed: under clauses (a) and (b), at a place where the defendant resides or carries on busin...
Read more