Skip to main content

Interviews and Features



1. Newspaper/online

A. LIBERTAD DE EXPRESIÓN

B. Super Lawyer, 8 July, 2015

C. Despite past frustrations, Nepalese still eager to vote, Published on KhabarSouthAsia
http://khabarsouthasia.com/en_GB/articles/apwi/articles/features/2013/11/19/feature-03

D. One of Chanda's kid dies, another in critical condition, Published on 'The Republica'

2. Radio/TV

A. Radio Thaha Sanchar, Awaz, 26 April, 2016: Interview on Intellectual Property Rights in Nepal on the Occassion of World IP Day-2016

B. Radio Sagarmatha, Agi Badhaun,Febuaray, 2014,
Interview on Copyright protection and challenges in Nepal.

C. Citizen FM, The Human Voice, October 30, 2013 https://soundcloud.com/asmita-dhital/the-human-face-with-kanchan

Interview on Youth and Politics in Nepal.

Popular posts from this blog

Intellectual Property Rights in Nepal

Pratyush Nath Upreti Speaking at a memorial service for Nelson Mandela on Dec 10, 2013, South African President Jacob Zuma said, “There is no one like Madiba. He was one of a kind.” Indeed the South African president’s statement about the world’s greatest liberator who contributed so much to strengthening the values of human rights is very significant. Mandela is an inspiration for all mankind. Unfortunately, a controversy has arisen over the ownership and unauthorised use of the name Mandela since his death. Nelson Mandela’s image, name and quotations have been registered under the proprietorship of the Nelson Mandela Foundation as per South African trademark laws. They are registered under several classes including jewellery, clothing, books and other products. Furthermore, other proprietors of the Mandela brand include the Nelson Mandela Children’s Hospital Trust, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund. Infringement and unauthorised use of
At The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) of European Union, Alicante, Spain, 2015

Philip Morris v Uruguay: A Breathing Space for Domestic IP Regulation

Citation: Pratyush Nath Upreti, Philip Morris v Uruguay: A Breathing Space for Domestic IP Regulation, European Intellectual Property Review (2018)40(4), 277­

IP License as an Investment: Insights from Bridgestone v.Panama

IP License as an Investment: Insights from Bridgestone v.Panama Please find full article here: ABSTRACT The relationship between intellectual property (IP)and investment is old, but the debates are new. Recent high profile cases in which intellectual property rights(IPRs) are being sought to be protected by means of international investment law and treaties have generated visible debate and discussion. In the light of the recent decision on expedited objections in Bridgestone Licensing v. Republic of Panama, this article will explore arguments put forwarded by both parties regarding the interaction between IP Licence Agreements and the definition of investment, as well as the Tribunal’s finding on the question whether an IP Licence with a revenue sharing model qualifies as an investment. Citation: Pratyush Nath Upreti, IP License as an Investment: Insights from Bridgestone v.Panama (2018)1(1) Stockholm Intellectual Property Review 16 full text of the article is available h