This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
Your journey from Dhanbad to where you stand today is truly inspiring. How have your personal experiences and academic background in Political Science shaped your decision to pursue law, and how have they influenced your strong legal journey and commitment to the profession?
I’m a first-generation lawyer, born into a family deeply rooted in the pharmaceutical business, a world far removed from the courts and statutes that now define my everyday life. Growing up with cerebral palsy in a small town like Dhanbad, I often felt the need to prove myself – to be seen, to be heard, and to be taken seriously. For me, the black coat was more than a symbol of the legal profession, it signified a possibility – that merit could speak louder than mobility and that confidence and conviction could override any preconceived notions about ability.
I came to Delhi and pursued Political Science. The discipline deepened my understanding of the Constitution, legal systems, and power structures. It eventually led me to Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law where I discovered my calling in Intellectual Property law.
My personal experience instilled in me a deep sense of resilience, to persist, adapt, and advocate in a world not always built for difference. At the same time, my academic grounding in Political Science gave me a strong structural lens helping me understand laws and their intricate interplay with legal systems and institutions.
This foundation, combined with lived experience, has shaped not just how I view the law but how I approach Intellectual Property, with empathy for creators and right holders, strategic thinking for brand protection, and a deep sense of purpose in safeguarding invention.
In the early phase of your career, you worked in a full-service law firm and an independent general practitioner. What motivated your transition into intellectual property law, and how did those foundational years shape your current approach to IP practice?
In the early phase of my career, working with a full-service law firm and an independent general practitioner exposed me to the breadth and intensity of legal practice – from civil suits to commercial disputes. It was a rigorous training ground that honed my advocacy, research, and drafting skills.
I began noticing how deeply brands, trademarks, domain names, content, and technology were getting intertwined with legal disputes. I was drawn to the unique intersection of law, commerce, and creativity that intellectual property law offered. The shift to IP felt organic—it allowed me to work not just reactively in disputes, but also proactively with creators, individuals and businesses to safeguard what they were building.
Those foundational litigation years instilled in me a detail-oriented, strategic mindset. They taught me how to anticipate risks, think like a litigator even in advisory work, and approach IP not in isolation, but in its commercial and legal context.
You’ve represented clients in domain name disputes before WIPO and INDRP. Could you walk us through your experience in this space? What are some of the key legal and strategic challenges entities commonly face in such matters?
The legal framework under both WIPO’s UDRP and India’s INDRP is robust but exacting, placing the onus on the Complainant to establish three core elements: (1) that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights, (2) that the registrant lacks legitimate interests in the domain, and (3) that the domain has been registered and is being used in bad faith. While WIPO offers quicker, globally recognized redress—typically resolving disputes within 60–75 days—INDRP is key for .in domain disputes and may take 3–6 months or more due to procedural flexibilities and single-arbitrator handling under NIXI.
Success before both forums relies heavily on the Complainant’s ability to present comprehensive evidence, including proof of trademark rights, prior and continuous use, and supporting documentation like screenshots of misuse, WHOIS records, archived web content, and prior communications. This evidence must clearly align with the legal criteria, particularly to demonstrate the registrant’s bad faith and lack of legitimate interest. The process is evidence-driven and leaves little room for error.
One of the significant challenges is that infringers often hide behind privacy services or proxy registrations, making it harder to trace the true registrant. WIPO has mechanisms in place to request unmasking, usually coordinated with the registrar, though it’s not guaranteed. INDRP poses more hurdles due to NIXI’s limited procedural transparency and lack of early disclosure protocols. In such cases, complainants must rely on circumstantial and digital forensics—such as WHOIS history, DNS and IP data, website metadata, and linkages across abusive registrations—to build a strong, inferential case.
While dealing with software piracy and advising software firms, what major trends and challenges have you observed globally? How do you think India’s legal and enforcement mechanisms compare with international frameworks in addressing piracy?
Software piracy today has evolved into a highly complex and dynamic threat, fuelled by digital proliferation and the increasing sophistication of infringers. We’ve seen a decisive shift from physical duplication to digital piracy, with unauthorized downloads, license key sharing, and hacked installations spreading through torrent sites, web platforms, and even on social media and e-commerce portals. A major trend is the rise of ‘cracked’ enterprise solutions being sold at a fraction of their actual price, often through resellers masquerading as legitimate vendors. In the SaaS ecosystem, misuse takes subtler forms – such as license overuse, unauthorized API calls, credential stuffing, and cloning of proprietary software models.
From a comparative lens, India’s enforcement mechanisms have strengthened in recent years. Courts have become more proactive in granting Anton Piller orders, John Doe orders, and dynamic injunctions to block rogue websites. The IT Act and Rules coupled with the Copyright Act, provides a statutory framework for enforcement, and cybercrime units in metro cities are increasingly equipped to tackle software piracy, especially in B2B settings.
However, when compared with jurisdictions like the U.S., EU, or even Singapore, India still lags in certain areas- particularly in digital forensics, quick takedown protocols and cross-border enforcement cooperation. Lack of digital IP expertise in certain enforcement bodies and different judicial approaches to damages also pose challenges.
To combat this, software companies must take a multi-pronged strategy: strong, enforceable EULAs with audit rights; proactive license tracking using Software Asset Management (SAM) tools; deployment of digital watermarking and DRM technologies; and active online surveillance of infringing platforms. Legal action must often be supported by pre-suit investigations to establish unauthorized use, followed by civil enforcement and, where appropriate, criminal prosecution.
The most effective anti-piracy efforts globally involve a mix of litigation, technology, partnerships with enforcement agencies, and user education, something India is slowly but surely aligning itself.
You’ve also championed client interests during mediations at the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. In your view, how effective is mediation in resolving complex IP disputes, and what role does it play in balancing commercial and legal interests?
Mediation, especially in the context of IP disputes, can be a remarkably effective tool when approached with the right mindset. At the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre, I’ve seen firsthand how it creates space for parties to move beyond rigid legal positions and engage in commercially meaningful dialogue. Unlike litigation, which is often adversarial and time-consuming, mediation allows for tailored, confidential, and business-sensitive solutions, making it particularly valuable in high-stakes IP matters.
In disputes involving brand reputation, time-to-market pressures or ongoing commercial relationships, mediation offers the flexibility to craft outcomes that litigation may not be equipped to provide, such as licensing arrangements, joint ventures, or mutually acceptable phased withdrawals. Pre-suit mediation, in particular, has emerged as a powerful tool to resolve conflicts early, avoid escalation, and maintain goodwill – saving time, cost, and reputational strain.
Ultimately, mediation helps balance legal rights with commercial realities. It empowers clients to co-create outcomes that serve both legal and business interests. In an IP landscape shaped by innovation and speed, mediation is increasingly becoming a strategic first step—particularly effective in resolving disputes early and efficiently, with the exception of aggravated cases of infringement or passing off that merit litigation.
Having advised multinational clients in sectors such as automotive, pharmaceuticals, e-commerce, and hospitality, what unique IP challenges have you seen in the automotive sector? What preventive strategies would you recommend to avoid trademark issues early on?
The automotive sector in India faces distinct IP challenges due to its vast supply chain, aggressive branding strategies, and a rapidly growing aftermarket ecosystem. Trademark infringement today extends beyond core brand names and registered marks to include sub-brands, model names, variant tags, and even alphanumeric identifiers. Infringers, particularly in the spare parts and accessories markets, routinely misuse these marks to falsely suggest association or compatibility to original vehicle manufacturers (the rightful IP holders). This not only dilutes brand equity but also risks consumer deception and safety, especially when counterfeit or substandard parts and accessories are involved.
A common defence invoked by unauthorised sellers is Section 30(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, which allows the use of a registered mark to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service (e.g., “compatible with Brand X”). However, this defence is not absolute. The protection under the provision ceases to apply where the use is not in accordance with honest industrial or commercial practices, or where it takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the mark. In the automotive space, this line is often crossed when infringers stylise logos, mimic trade dress, or market counterfeit parts under the guise of compatibility.
Design infringement is another major concern, especially with regard to spare parts like headlights, grills, mirrors, and alloy wheels. Many of these are reverse-engineered and sold in the grey market without authorization, undermining both brand value and consumer safety. Companies often fail to register industrial designs or delay doing so, weakening their enforcement stance in cases of replication by third-party manufacturer.
To address this, companies must actively monitor and enforce rights not just in their principal marks but also in model-specific and component-related branding, which are often more vulnerable. Registering sub-brands and variant names in relevant classes, including digital and retail categories, is key. Furthermore, legal notices and litigation should specifically challenge bad-faith use that exceeds the scope of Section 30(2) (d) focusing on consumer confusion, deceptive marketing, and reputational harm.
On the design front, preventive strategies include timely registration of industrial designs for high-risk components such as headlights, mirrors, grilles, and alloy wheels, especially those with distinctive visual appeal likely to be replicated. Companies should conduct regular design audits, embed subtle identifiers to support enforcement, and use border enforcement mechanisms to block infringing imports. Where misuse persists, design infringement lawsuits under the Designs Act, 2000—seeking injunctions, damages, and delivery of infringing goods—are vital tools to deter copycats and affirm rights. Combined with trademark enforcement, these steps help safeguard brand equity and product integrity across the automotive ecosystem.
You’ve often mentored and guided younger professionals. What advice would you offer to law students or litigators looking to shift to IP law, and what resources or habits can help them stay competitive and updated in this fast-evolving domain?
For law students or litigators looking to transition into IP law, my first piece of advice would be: ‘cultivate curiosity’. It is important to ground yourself in the fundamentals—copyrights, trademarks, patents, and designs but it is equally imperative to go beyond textbooks. Following case law developments and tracking decisions of various courts, as well as international bodies like WIPO and dispute resolution platforms like INDRP, is essential. These decisions not only reflect how the law is being interpreted in real time but also reveal emerging trends, judicial attitudes, and strategic nuances that shape IP enforcement and protection.
Using legal search engines like Manupatra and Westlaw, staying tuned into online news portals such as Live Law and Bar & Bench, and regularly reading blogs like SpicyIP and IPKat are excellent ways to stay updated. Newsletters, national and international legal magazines and webinars (hosted by bar associations or IP firms) also offer timely insights into evolving jurisprudence and policy shifts.
I would recommend interning with or working alongside seasoned practitioners. Many young professionals grow the most by observing and absorbing. Simply being in the room with experienced lawyers, watching how they interpret statutes, craft arguments and strategy and navigate court dynamics can shape your legal thinking in ways that are both subtle and lasting. Know the procedure as regards court filings and court practice. Most importantly, stay open to learning and listening whether from seniors, peers, or juniors. The humility will keep you sharp and grounded.
Balancing demanding professional responsibilities with personal well-being is no small feat. How do you manage this balance, and what practices or mindset have helped you stay grounded over the years?
Balancing the intensity of legal practice with personal well-being has been one of the most challenging and ongoing lessons of my career. In the early years, it was easy to get swept up in the long hours and high-pressure deadlines and the constant push to prove myself. But over time, I’ve come to realize that sustainability in this profession requires more than endurance, it needs intentionality, boundaries and deliberate pauses.
Balance comes from prioritizing high-impact tasks and pressing deadlines, while simultaneously planning a clear roadmap for research, preparation, and argument execution in other matters. This structured approach ensures that urgent work is handled efficiently without losing sight of long-term responsibilities, helping me stay steady, focused, and prepared across all fronts.
Spending time with family and friends, engaging in conversations beyond law, and learning to disconnect have become vital. Music, movies, and books are more than just breaks, they’re essential tools to break monotony, spark creativity, and keep me grounded.
From being mentored by senior lawyers to independently handling high-stakes litigation, your journey has been marked by growth and learning. What are some of the most valuable lessons you’ve carried forward, especially when it comes to leadership and courtroom advocacy?
Every journey has its highs and lows, and mine has been no exception. I did make my share of mistakes in the early years – be it in court, professional interactions, or even client handling. Each misstep became a valuable lesson. I learnt to face embarrassment, accept feedback, and grow from it. One of the most important lessons was to remain both tenacious in facing challenges and malleable enough to learn from seniors and peers—an essential balance not just at the start, but throughout one’s legal career.
I’m deeply grateful for the mentorship I received, especially from Mr. Achuthan Shreekumar, Mr. Saif Khan and Ms. Binny Kalra in my early years. They taught me to take full ownership of my work, to be meticulous in my preparation, and to argue with clarity, conviction, and courage. These values continue to guide me through complex matters and high-pressure situations in court with balance and self-belief.
Observing some of the finest legal minds during my legal career has been my privilege. It has helped me absorb the nuances of court craft, statutory interpretation, and legal strategy, often through a quiet process of osmosis.
Equally important have been the lessons in procedural rigour, understanding filings, registry practices, court processes, and client coordination. Perhaps most importantly, I’ve learned to listen, whether to seniors, peers, or juniors. Staying open and receptive has I’ve imbibed the importance of discipline, resilience, ethics, and a commitment to timeline – qualities that help build a legal culture that respects creativity, integrity, and innovation.
As a lawyer with cerebral palsy, you’ve spoken powerfully about inclusion and structural challenges. What changes would you like to see in the legal industry to make it more accessible, and how can organizations move from intent to implementation on this aspect?
Navigating the legal profession as a differently-abled lawyer has been a mixed journey. I’ve been fortunate to encounter mentors and colleagues who valued my credentials and potential over visible physical limitations. Despite the same, I’ve also faced scepticism—about whether I could handle the physical demands of litigation or keep pace in a high-pressure environment. These misconceptions stem from deeper social conditioning around disability and competence. The only real way to counter them is through consistent performance, meaningful outcomes, and quiet persistence.
Over time, I’ve realised the issue isn’t about access to opportunity. Many firms today are open to hiring professionals with disabilities, especially as diversity becomes a core organisational value. The real challenge lies in organisations being truly disability-cognizant beyond the point of entry.
Genuine inclusion means going beyond symbolic representation—it requires accessible infrastructure, assistive tech and software apps, flexible work schedules. Most importantly, more organisations need to invest in inclusive training across teams and levels and to build a culture rooted in empathy, understanding, and intentional dialogue. Equally important is addressing ‘disability blindness’—the expectation that disabled professionals meet identical performance standards without acknowledging their physical limitation or the systemic barriers they navigate. It must be understood that true inclusion lies in recognising difference, not ignoring it and creating conditions that enable success on equal terms.
Looking ahead, how do you see IP law evolving over the next decade, especially with the rise of AI-generated content, deepfakes, and non-traditional trademarks? What key reforms or innovations do you think are essential to future-proof the IP framework?
Over the next decade, IP law in India will be under mounting pressure to modernise in response to rapid technological advances. AI generated content fundamentally challenges the traditional copyright framework, which is centred on human authorship and originality. As machines autonomously create literary, artistic, and musical works, existing laws struggle to define ownership, liability, and infringement. To address this, regulatory clarity is essential either through specific amendments to the Copyright Act or by introducing sui generis protections tailored to AI generated and machine generated content.
To address deepfake misuse, India’s IP regime must strengthen personality rights to prevent unauthorized digital cloning of a person’s image, voice, or likeness, especially for commercial use. There must be an expansion of the scope of ‘misrepresentation’ under trademark and passing-off laws to cover deepfake endorsements or AI-generated impersonations that mislead consumers or dilutes brand identity.
Additionally, there must be an introduction of mandatory disclosure or watermarking requirements for AI-generated or manipulated content, especially on social media or commercial platforms, to ensure transparency and traceability. Lastly, there is a need of faster takedown mechanisms and intermediary liability guidelines tailored to AI and deepfake content under IP enforcement rules, empowering right holders to act swiftly.
Trademark law must evolve to protect non-traditional marks like sound, scent, motion, and holograms. With businesses increasingly operating in digital-first or virtual environments, including the metaverse, the law must address how trademarks function when use is no longer confined to physical goods or services. This will require not only legislative amendments but also updated examination guidelines, jurisprudence, and technological competence within the Trademark Registry and Judiciary.
Get in touch with Karan Kamra –
