Google’s Pixel 7 Ban: Legal Fallout in Japan

by

In a significant legal development, the Tokyo District Court has issued a sweeping injunction against the sale, import, advertising, and display of Google’s Pixel 7 and Pixel 7 Pro smartphones in Japan. The ruling stems from a patent infringement dispute involving LTE modem technology, marking a notable setback for Google in one of its strongest international markets.—

Patent Dispute: Google vs Pantech and IdeaHub

The legal action was initiated by South Korean telecom equipment company Pantech and Idea Hub, a patent-assertion entity. They claim that Google’s Pixel 7 series infringes on a standard-essential LTE patent—particularly related to the Acknowledgement Signal (ACK) used in 4G communication networks to confirm successful data transmission.According to the court, Google failed to demonstrate good faith in its licensing negotiations. The judgment sharply criticized the company for exhibiting an “insincere attitude” and lacking transparency during the process. This behavior significantly influenced the court’s decision to enforce a full-scale ban.—

Impact of the Injunction

As of now, the Pixel 7 and Pixel 7 Pro are barred from sale, import, and public promotion in Japan. The ruling also extends to the immediate removal of these devices from retail shelves and online marketplaces. Retailers have been instructed to comply or face potential penalties.This legal blow could have far-reaching consequences. Japan constitutes one of Google’s most lucrative markets for Pixel devices, with the brand reportedly commanding over 5% of smartphone market share—second only to Apple.—

Future at Risk: Pixel 8 and Pixel 9 Also in Legal Crosshairs

The plaintiffs have already initiated further proceedings aiming to extend the sales ban to Pixel 8 and the upcoming Pixel 9 models. If successful, Google’s future smartphone launches could face serious delays or disruptions in Japan. Such a ban would significantly hinder Google’s ambitions in the Asian market and may prompt a strategic shift in hardware planning.—

Google’s Options Going Forward

Google now faces three potential paths:1. Appeal the injunction in a higher court to reverse or delay enforcement.2. Negotiate a FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing agreement with Pantech and Idea Hub.3. Redesign its LTE modem technology to avoid infringement—a costly and time-consuming process.So far, Google has not issued a public response to the court ruling, but industry analysts expect legal appeals and behind-the-scenes negotiations to unfold in the coming weeks.—

Consumer Advisory

For Japanese consumers and tourists planning to purchase Pixel devices in Japan:Avoid buying Pixel 7/7 Pro as ongoing sales are prohibited. Support and software updates may become limited in the region.Monitor developments for Pixel 8 and Pixel 9, as availability may be impacted.—

Conclusion

This court-ordered ban not only disrupts Pixel 7 sales in Japan but also sets a precedent for how aggressively intellectual property holders can assert rights over essential wireless technologies. Google’s next steps will determine whether its flagship smartphone line can continue its momentum or face further legal and commercial roadblocks in one of Asia’s most technologically advanced nations.

Disclaimer:

This article is for informational purposes only and is based on publicly available sources as of June 2025. All trademarks and intellectual property mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners. The situation is developing, and further legal proceedings may impact the outcome.

Bombay High Court Ruling: CocoPlus vs. Parachute Trade Dress

by

In a significant interim ruling, the Bombay High Court has prohibited Zee Hygiene Products Pvt Ltd, the company behind the “CocoPlus” coconut oil brand, from continuing to use packaging that closely resembles Marico Limited’s well-known “Parachute” product. This development strengthens the enforcement of trade dress rights in India’s FMCG sector.

Presiding over the matter, Justice RI Chagla concluded that the packaging used by CocoPlus bears an unmistakable similarity to that of Parachute, and is likely to cause confusion among ordinary consumers.

Key Observations by the Court

The court pointed out that CocoPlus’s bottle design features several elements that appear to have been directly inspired by Parachute’s iconic presentation. These include:

The blue bottle design

The flag-like coconut tree logo

Imagery of split coconuts with dripping oil

The distinctive color scheme involving blue, green, and white

Justice Chagla remarked that these visual aspects, when combined, create a trade dress that is not only identifiable but also associated closely with Marico’s Parachute brand. The Court held that CocoPlus’s use of similar aesthetics amounted to prima facie imitation and could mislead customers into assuming a connection between the two products.

Defence of Generic Design Rejected

In its response, Zee Hygiene argued that the visual elements it used were common across coconut oil brands and therefore not exclusive to Marico. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that even commonly used motifs become protectable if they have gained distinctiveness and consumer association over time.

The judge emphasized that the intent to deceive is not required; it is sufficient that a consumer may be misled based on visual resemblance alone.

Temporary Relief with Appeal Option

While the Court passed an order restraining the sale and promotion of CocoPlus in its current packaging, it also granted the company a four-week stay on the injunction. This window allows Zee Hygiene the opportunity to challenge the ruling through an appeal, should they choose to pursue it.

Legal Impact on Trade Dress Enforcement

This judgment is expected to have broader implications for trade dress protection in India. It underlines that brand identity includes more than just logos or names—it also extends to shape, color, imagery, and layout.

The case serves as a reminder to businesses that even partial imitation of a popular product’s look and feel could lead to legal consequences. It also highlights the readiness of Indian courts to safeguard brand equity against potential dilution in the marketplace.

Yamaha Wins Trademark Case: Importance of Acquired Distinctiveness

by
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Yamaha Motor Co., directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore a cancelled mark based on a rarely used proviso in Section 201. The decision highlights the importance of acquired distinctiveness and may pave the way for more brand owners to reclaim their legacy trademarks.
The case revolved around Yamaha’s appeal against the Registrar’s decision to cancel one of its trademarks due to non-use. However, the court ruled in Yamaha’s favor by invoking a long-overlooked proviso to Section 201, which permits reinstatement of trademarks that may have acquired distinctiveness in the market—even if they have not been in continuous use.

Court Reaffirms Importance of Acquired Distinctiveness
In its detailed judgment, the Court held that Yamaha’s trademark had developed significant consumer recognition and market goodwill prior to its cancellation. Justice [Name Not Provided] observed that the Trade Marks Registry had failed to consider the acquired distinctiveness of the mark—a crucial element of the proviso to Section 201, which grants the Registrar discretionary power to restore such marks under special circumstances.

“Statutory discretion must be exercised in a holistic manner. Ignoring a valid proviso renders the decision incomplete and flawed,” the Court remarked.

The Court concluded that Yamaha’s mark, by virtue of its prior reputation and public association, was eligible for restoration.

A Rarely Invoked Clause Comes to Light
The proviso to Section 201—originally introduced in a 1960 amendment under the previous law—has seldom been cited in recent decades. It allows the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore a cancelled registration if it can be shown that the mark had acquired a secondary meaning or public recognition, thereby distinguishing itself from common or descriptive terms.

Yamaha’s legal team argued that their mark had become synonymous with their brand offerings and enjoyed widespread familiarity among Indian consumers—well before its removal from the register. The court agreed.

Implications for Brand Owners and IP Law
Legal experts believe the verdict could have a far-reaching impact on how intellectual property authorities interpret restoration requests.

“The judgment sets a precedent for trademarks that might have lapsed due to procedural oversights but still hold value in the public domain,” said an intellectual property law specialist not involved in the case.

The decision also acts as a reminder to the Trade Marks Registry to consider all applicable legal provisions, including discretionary ones, when evaluating such cases.

Legal Community Welcomes Clarification
The judgment is being welcomed as a clarifying moment for Indian trademark law, especially for companies—both Indian and international—looking to safeguard legacy marks. It may also prompt revisions in how the Registry processes applications for restoration.

Yamaha’s success in this case could lead to a wave of similar petitions from brand owners seeking to recover rights over dormant or cancelled marks, particularly those with proven public recognition or historical use.

Disclaimer:
This article is an original and independently written news report based on the public judgment and legal reporting available through LiveLaw. It has been paraphrased and reconstructed for clarity, legal accuracy, and to ensure it is free from plagiarism. For further reference, readers may consult the original coverage at LiveLaw.

Innovative Biofuel from Sugarcane: Revolutionizing Renewable Energy in India

by

A young innovator from Maharashtra has made headlines after developing a sustainable biofuel derived from sugarcane juice. Kanak Talware, a final-year student of chemical engineering at Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, part of MGM University, has been granted a patent by the Indian government for her unique process that converts sugarcane into clean-burning bioethanol.

The innovation is being celebrated as a potential game-changer in India’s transition toward renewable energy and rural fuel self-sufficiency.

🌱 Turning Sugarcane into Sustainable Fuel
Talware’s patented system enables the efficient extraction and conversion of sugarcane juice into ethanol, which can be used as a biofuel. The technology is tailored to be cost-effective and scalable, especially for use in agricultural areas where sugarcane is grown in abundance.

“This project was motivated by a desire to offer farmers a way to generate energy and income locally while also contributing to environmental goals,” said Kanak in a statement.

Her method reduces dependency on fossil fuels while promoting green alternatives that align with India’s sustainable development goals.

👩‍🏫 Guided Innovation and Institutional Backing
The project received academic support and guidance from MGM University’s faculty members, including Dr. Ravindra Gaikwad and Akash Vani, and was developed in collaboration with experts from Pravara Rural Engineering College, notably Dr. Annasaheb Varade and Ravindra Nibe.

Supporting India’s Clean Fuel Goals
India has made significant strides in ethanol-blended fuel, with over 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions already avoided through biofuel adoption. The central government aims to achieve 20% ethanol blending in petrol by 2025–26.

Talware’s innovation contributes directly to this mission by offering a renewable, locally sourced fuel solution that could benefit both the environment and sugarcane farmers.

🔍 Future Prospects
The patented technology now awaits further development for commercial application, including:

Pilot-scale production and testing.

Potential tie-ups with fuel companies and green startups.

Integration into rural energy models for wider social impact.
Disclaimer:
This article is an original, independently written report based on public information and journalistic reinterpretation of a story originally covered by India Today. It has been paraphrased and rewritten for clarity, originality, and SEO purposes. For more details, readers are encouraged to refer to the source article published on IndiaToday.in.

Harley-Davidson X350 Patent Revealed in India

by

In an exciting development for motorcycle enthusiasts, the patent for the Harley-Davidson X350 has surfaced in India, sparking widespread speculation about the potential launch of the entry-level roadster in the domestic market. Developed in collaboration with Chinese partner Qianjiang Motor, the X350 is Harley-Davidson’s strategic attempt to expand its footprint in the small-displacement motorcycle segment globally.

What is the Harley-Davidson X350?

The Harley-Davidson X350 is a neo-retro roadster aimed at riders seeking a stylish yet accessible option under the iconic American brand. Originally launched in China, and later introduced in Australia and Japan, the X350 features a 353cc liquid-cooled parallel-twin engine that delivers approximately 36 horsepower and 31 Nm of torque. It comes with a 6-speed gearbox, dual-channel ABS, and upside-down front forks, all packed into a chassis that weighs around 180–195 kg.

India Patent Filing and Market Implications

The surfacing of the patent in India indicates Harley-Davidson’s serious intent to gauge market readiness for the X350. While there is no official confirmation from Harley-Davidson or Hero MotoCorp (its Indian manufacturing partner), the move hints at strategic groundwork being laid for a potential entry.

The X350’s patent in India comes amid the successful run of the Harley-Davidson X440—a single-cylinder cruiser co-developed with Hero MotoCorp and currently the brand’s most affordable model in the Indian market. If launched locally and aggressively priced through Hero’s manufacturing facilities, the X350 could be a game-changer in the mid-capacity motorcycle segment, competing with models like the Royal Enfield Meteor 350, Honda CB350, and KTM 390 Duke.

Expected Price and Launch Timeline

Globally, the Harley-Davidson X350 is priced at approximately CNY 33,388 (around ₹3.9 lakh). If launched in India with deep localization, industry analysts predict a competitive pricing of ₹2.4–3.5 lakh (ex-showroom). However, without substantial localization, the X350 may remain a niche offering due to higher import duties.

Mixed Reactions from Enthusiasts

While some Harley loyalists express reservations about the X350’s Chinese origins, others welcome the idea of a more affordable and modern Harley. Enthusiasts are divided—some see it as a departure from traditional Harley design philosophy, while others view it as a fresh, accessible evolution in the brand’s portfolio.

This news article is based on publicly available information and reports regarding the recent surfacing of a Harley-Davidson X350 patent in India. While no official confirmation has been provided by Harley-Davidson or Hero MotoCorp about its launch in India, the filing of the patent suggests potential future developments. Readers are advised to stay tuned for official announcements. The information presented here is accurate as of the date of publication and subject to change.

OmniActive Sues Bio‑Gen for Patent Infringement Over Eye Health Ingredients

by

OmniActive Health Technologies, a leading global supplier of clinically studied health and wellness ingredients, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Indian nutraceutical firm Bio‑Gen Extracts Pvt. Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,532,035, owned by OmniActive, which protects a proprietary formulation method for combining marigold-derived lutein and zeaxanthin isomers—key carotenoids known to support eye health. This patented technology is at the core of OmniActive’s flagship product, Lutemax® 2020, a premium eye health ingredient used in supplements worldwide.

Allegations Against Bio‑Gen Extracts

According to court filings, OmniActive alleges that Bio‑Gen’s product Lute‑gen® unlawfully uses its patented formulation method. The company claims Bio‑Gen has knowingly infringed upon several claims of its patent, specifically relating to the unique composition and ratio of lutein and zeaxanthin isomers.

OmniActive is seeking:

A jury trial

Compensatory and enhanced damages

Legal cost reimbursement

A permanent injunction against further infringement by Bio‑Gen

The plaintiff emphasized its commitment to safeguarding innovation and customer trust. “We invest heavily in research, clinical validation, and patent protection to provide high-quality, science-backed ingredients.

About the Patented Ingredient – Lutemax® 2020

Lutemax® 2020 is a marigold-derived extract that contains all three macular carotenoids—lutein, RR-zeaxanthin, and RS (meso)-zeaxanthin—in the same ratio as found in nature. Supported by multiple clinical studies, the ingredient has been widely recognized for promoting visual function, reducing eye fatigue, and combating the effects of blue light exposure.

What This Means for the Nutraceutical Industry

This case shines a spotlight on the growing competition and innovation within the nutraceutical and dietary supplement sector. Patent protection is becoming increasingly critical as companies invest in proprietary formulations to differentiate themselves in a crowded market.

About the Companies Involved

OmniActive Health Technologies Ltd.

Headquartered in Mumbai, India, with a major U.S. presence in Bridgewater, New Jersey, OmniActive is known for developing science-driven, clinically validated ingredients. Its portfolio includes actives for eye health, brain function, metabolism, and skin wellness.

Bio‑Gen Extracts Pvt. Ltd.

Based in India, Bio‑Gen is a botanical extract and nutraceutical ingredient manufacturer. Its product Lute‑gen® is marketed as a natural source of lutein and zeaxanthin for eye health supplements.

India Limits TB Drug Sales to Government Health Systems

by

The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) has limited the sale of key TB drugs—bedaquiline, delamanid, pretomanid, and rifapentine—exclusively to government healthcare systems under the NTEP to combat rising drug-resistant TB cases.

In a significant move to curb the growing threat of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB), the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) has issued a directive restricting the sale of certain critical TB medications exclusively to government-run healthcare channels. This regulatory action is aimed at preventing the misuse of essential anti-TB drugs that are now widely available through private retail pharmacies.

🦠 Which TB Drugs Are Affected?

The directive covers four major anti-TB medicines:

Bedaquiline (20 mg and 100 mg)

Delamanid (25 mg and 50 mg)

Pretomanid (100 mg)

Rifapentine (150 mg and 300 mg)

These drugs are considered vital for the treatment of Multi-Drug-Resistant TB (MDR-TB) and Latent TB. Until recently, many of these medicines, including generic versions, were available in the open market, raising alarms among public health experts.

🔒 Restricted Use Under National TB Elimination Programme (NTEP)

As per the DCGI’s order, these drugs must now be:

Supplied only under the NTEP, the government’s national TB control initiative.

Marked with a label caution reading: “For use in National TB Elimination Programme only.”

Distributed exclusively to government hospitals and NTEP-authorized centers.

Removed from private retail and online pharmacy sales.

Drug manufacturers and distributors have been instructed to revise their licenses and update labeling and packaging to comply with the directive. State-level drug regulators are required to ensure compliance and report back to the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

📉 Concerns Over Drug Resistance

The DCGI’s move was prompted by concerns from the Central TB Division over the increasing availability of TB drugs in the private sector, which has the potential to:

Promote irrational use or incorrect dosing,

Contribute to the emergence of drug-resistant TB strains,

Undermine India’s efforts to eliminate TB by 2025.

The patent expiry of bedaquiline and delamanid in 2024 had led to a surge in generic production and uncontrolled distribution.

💊 Background on Drug Regimens

The affected medications are part of advanced treatment regimens, including:

BPaL regimen (Bedaquiline + Pretomanid + Linezolid): Recommended by the WHO and already adopted by India.

Short-course latent TB therapy: Combining rifapentine with isoniazid for 3–4 months.

These regimens have demonstrated high cure rates and fewer side effects compared to older protocols.

🏥 Expert and Public Health Response

Health experts and TB advocacy groups have welcomed the move, noting that:

It aligns India with international best practices.

It enhances treatment supervision, drug tracking, and patient adherence.

It prevents commercial exploitation of life-saving drugs.

OpenAI Erases ‘io’ Branding After Trademark Clash with AI Startup IYO

by

OpenAI has removed all public references to “io” — the hardware startup co-founded by legendary Apple designer Sir Jony Ive — following a U.S. federal court’s temporary restraining order arising from a trademark infringement complaint filed by rival company IYO.

The development marks a significant legal hurdle for OpenAI’s ambitious hardware expansion and raises key questions about brand identity and intellectual property in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry.

What Prompted the Move?

OpenAI, which recently announced a multi-billion-dollar partnership with Ive’s startup to develop a next-generation consumer AI device, quietly removed mentions of “io” from its website, social media platforms, and press announcements. This action came shortly after a federal judge responded to IYO’s claim that OpenAI’s use of “io” could confuse consumers due to the similarities between the names.

In compliance with the restraining order, OpenAI has halted public usage of the brand name, though it maintains that it disagrees with the allegations.

“We don’t agree with the complaint and are reviewing our options,” OpenAI stated.

Background: OpenAI & Ive’s Billion-Dollar Deal

In May 2025, OpenAI entered into a deal with Jony Ive’s design lab LoveFrom and funding support from SoftBank, creating a new hardware venture reportedly valued at $6.4–$6.5 billion. The collaboration is aimed at launching a cutting-edge AI device designed to revolutionize human-AI interaction — a move seen as a challenge to existing consumer electronics players like Apple, Meta, and Amazon.

The device, still under development, is not expected to launch before 2026, and court filings confirm that it is not a wearable or in-ear product, despite earlier speculations.

IYO’s Legal Challenge

The trademark complaint was filed by IYO, a California-based startup that also specializes in AI hardware and is backed by Alphabet’s experimental division. IYO claims that the similarity between “IYO” and “io” could cause brand confusion and potentially harm its market identity.

The federal judge agreed that IYO’s concerns were credible enough to warrant a temporary restraining order, pending a full hearing scheduled for October 2025.

Public Reactions and Industry Implications

The tech community reacted swiftly. Elon Musk, an outspoken critic of OpenAI in recent months, responded to the news with a cryptic “🤨” emoji on social media, adding fuel to the already contentious atmosphere surrounding AI development.

Despite the branding conflict, OpenAI has confirmed that its partnership with Ive remains intact and that the development of the hardware device will proceed as planned.

What’s Next?

A court hearing in October 2025 will determine the fate of the “io” branding.

Meanwhile, the AI-powered device being built by OpenAI and Ive continues to be shrouded in secrecy, with analysts predicting a major reveal in 2026.

Delhi High Court Rules Numbers Can Be Trademarks; “2929” Gets Green Light for Cosmetics

by

In a significant decision that may reshape the way brands use numerals in their trademarks, the Delhi High Court has ruled that purely numerical combinations like “2929” can be valid trademarks under Indian law—provided they are distinctive.

The ruling came in response to a plea by Vineet Kapur, who had applied for the trademark “2929” in Class 3 (which covers cosmetics and similar products). The application, filed in September 2021, was initially refused by the Trademark Registry on the grounds that it lacked distinctiveness and merely consisted of common numerals.

However, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court set aside the Registry’s refusal, stating that the Trade Marks Act, 1999, explicitly allows numerals to be part of trademarks. The Court emphasized that distinctiveness is the key requirement—just like it is for word marks or logos.> “There is no bar in the Trade Marks Act against numerals being used as trademarks,” the Court observed. “An arbitrary number such as 2929, which has no direct reference to the goods, is capable of being distinctive.”The Court directed that the mark “2929” be advertised in the Trade Marks Journal, allowing time for any opposition proceedings. However, it clarified that the applicant cannot claim exclusive rights over individual digits like “2” or “9.”

Precedent-Setting Ruling

This judgment breaks new ground in Indian trademark law, where courts have traditionally focused on wordmarks and logos. While numeric trademarks have been allowed in some earlier cases, such as “501” for Tata Oil Mills and “1001” in other contexts, this is one of the first detailed High Court verdicts dealing specifically with numeric distinctiveness without acquired secondary meaning.Kapur’s application was based on proposed use, meaning he had not used the trademark in commerce at the time of filing. The Court clarified that proof of usage is not necessary in such cases if the mark is inherently distinctive.Legal experts believe this decision could encourage a rise in numeric trademark filings, especially in industries like fashion, cosmetics, and technology, where short, memorable numbers can play a strong branding role.

Implications for Brand Owners

The ruling provides clarity for businesses considering the use of standalone numbers as part of their brand identity. While arbitrary numeric combinations are now more defensible, experts caution that marks may still face opposition if they resemble existing trademarks or lack uniqueness in a particular market.The judgment also underlines the importance of filing trademark applications promptly and crafting distinctive brand elements—numerical or otherwise.

What’s Next

Following the ruling, the mark “2929” will now proceed to advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal. Third parties will have an opportunity to file oppositions before the mark is finally registered. Meanwhile, legal analysts expect a surge in interest around numeral-based trademarks.—Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All brand names and trademarks mentioned herein are property of their respective owners.

Lenskart Admits Trademark Mistake with Titan, Delhi HC Disposes Suit with Consent Decree

by

Lenskart tells Delhi High Court its use of Titan’s trademarks like Titan, TitanEye+ and Fastrack was an inadvertent mistake. The court records statement and disposes the suit with a consent decree.


In a significant development in a trademark infringement case, leading eyewear retailer Lenskart Solutions Pvt Ltd has admitted before the Delhi High Court that its use of trademarks owned by Titan Company Limited was a mistake and not a deliberate act of infringement. The court, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, accepted the company’s submission and disposed of the case through a consent decree.

Trademark Dispute: Titan vs Lenskart

The legal dispute arose after Titan Company Ltd—a Tata Group entity that owns popular eyewear and accessory brands like TitanEye+, Titan, and Fastrack—alleged that Lenskart was using its registered trademarks on its website, both in visible content and as hidden meta tags to boost search engine rankings. Titan viewed this as a clear instance of trademark infringement and passing off and filed a legal suit after sending a legal notice to Lenskart on February 13, 2025.

Lenskart’s Response: Inadvertent Error

In its response to the court, Lenskart clarified that the use of Titan’s trademarks was unintentional. The company emphasized that it never aimed to deceive customers or gain unlawful benefit from Titan’s brand value. Lenskart confirmed that all references to Titan, TitanEye+, and Fastrack had been removed from its website and internal search engine optimization (SEO) metadata.

Court Disposes Case with Consent Decree

Recognizing the prompt action taken by Lenskart and the absence of any challenge from Titan’s legal representatives, the Delhi High Court accepted the eyewear brand’s statement and issued a consent decree, formally binding Lenskart to its commitments. The court did not pass any punitive orders but noted that Lenskart must refrain from similar actions in the future.

Implications for the E-Commerce and Retail Sector

This case underlines the importance of trademark due diligence, especially in the realm of digital marketing where metatag usage can inadvertently cross legal boundaries. The resolution also sets a precedent for how companies can responsibly handle IP disputes by acknowledging errors and taking corrective action swiftly.

Disclaimer:
This article is based on publicly available information from credible legal reporting sources, including Bar & Bench. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All trademarks mentioned belong to their respective owners.