Jurisdictions

 

Jurisdictions Covered

One firm, one coordinated strategy, every jurisdiction.

Headquartered in New Delhi, near the Indian Patent Office, Aswal Associates coordinates patent, trademark, design, and copyright filings and enforcement across more than 50 countries through our trusted network of associate firms. Whether you need a single national filing or a globally coordinated portfolio strategy, we manage the process end to end.

India

Our home jurisdiction and core strength. We handle the complete lifecycle of IP rights before the Indian Patent Office, the Trade Marks Registry, and the Designs Office — from filing and prosecution to opposition, litigation, and enforcement before the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court of India, and other specialised IP benches.

South Asia

We have provided regional IP coverage since 2008, with associates and affiliates across:

  • Bangladesh
  • Nepal
  • Bhutan
  • Maldives
  • Sri Lanka
  • Pakistan

We closely track evolving regional frameworks — for instance, the Maldives' upcoming national IP registration system through MIPO — to help clients time their filings strategically.

South East Asia & ASEAN

As there is no unified regional patent or trademark system in ASEAN, protection requires individual national filings. We coordinate this through our associate network across:

  • Singapore
  • Malaysia
  • Thailand
  • Vietnam
  • Indonesia
  • Philippines

For trademarks, several ASEAN jurisdictions accept Madrid Protocol applications, while others require direct national filing. For patents, we typically advise PCT national phase entry to preserve priority while assessing target markets.

East Asia

We coordinate filing and prosecution in:

  • China (CNIPA)
  • Japan (JPO)
  • South Korea

Europe & the United Kingdom

We assist clients in securing protection through the European Patent Office (EPO) and the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), as well as via the Unitary Patent system, which offers uniform protection across participating EU member states through a single registration and renewal — often at a meaningful cost saving compared to validating a European patent in multiple countries individually. We also handle UK filings.

United States

Filing, prosecution, and portfolio strategy before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with particular depth in pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and software-related inventions.

Other Jurisdictions

Through our associate network, we also support clients seeking protection in Australia and South Africa, and can coordinate filings in additional countries on request.

International Filing Systems We Use

  • PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) — a single international application preserving priority across contracting states for up to 30–31 months, before national phase entry.
  • Madrid Protocol — a single trademark application designating multiple member countries.
  • Hague System — centralised filing for industrial designs across member jurisdictions.
  • Paris Convention — priority filing rights across member countries within set timelines.

Not sure which jurisdictions matter for your business? Get in touch for an initial assessment of your IP strategy and target markets.

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