Legal fees cover the services provided by lawyers to their clients, which may be in form of advice, research, resources, and time. Initial fees may be charged for advice and case reviews, while ongoing matters have retainer fees that cover a range of services on a periodic basis. Legal fees are not standardized, and vary from firms to individuals. They are determined by the reputation of a law firm, the education level and experience of the attorney dealing with the case, the difficulty and novelty of the matter, overhead expenses as well as other aspects of the service.

Recently, in the case of STARBUCKS CORPORATION v. TEAQUILA A FASHION CAFE & ANR, the Delhi High Court has awarded damages valuing Rs. 2 lakhs and an amount of Rs. 9, 60,100 for the legal fees incurred in favour of Starbucks Corporation in a trademark infringement suit filed by it over the violation of its registered trademark 'FRAPPUCCINO'.

Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) incorporated in the year 1985, has been using the mark FRAPPUCCINO and its variations for its cold beverages throughout the world in several flavours and the said mark is registered in over 185 countries and territories in different classes in relation to various goods and services.

TeaQuila – A Fashion Café (“TeaQuila”) is a cafe based in Jaipur, Rajasthan which offers and serves multi-cuisines like Chinese, Italian and Lebanese. In addition to the cuisines, TeaQuila also serves beverages of different varieties.

The cause of action which triggered the filing of the suit arose when Starbucks found out that TeaQuila was infringing its trademark of “FRAPPUCCINO” and selling beverages under the names 'BUTTER SCOTCH FRAPPUCCINO' and 'HAZEL NUT FRAPPUCCINO', without any permission, authorization or license from Starbucks. The Delhi High Court on an earlier date had granted an interim injunction in favour of Starbucks and had restricted TeaQuila from using “FRAPPUCCINO” under any circumstances by any of its franchises and associations in any manner. However, TeaQuila continued to sell the impugned products. Having no option, Starbucks filed a suit in the High Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction.

Starbucks contended that TeaQuila’s marks namely 'BUTTER SCOTCH FRAPPUCCINO' and 'HAZEL NUT FRAPPUCCINO' were deceptively and phonetically identical to their FRAPPUCCINO mark and the names of the beverages were conceptually similar to one of Strabucks’ hand-crafted beverage items 'SMOKED BUTTERSCOTCH FRAPPUCCINO' and 'HAZELNUT FRAPPUCCINO BLENDED COFFEE'. Starbucks submitted that due to extensive use, worldwide sales and marketing and quality of the goods sold under the said marks, it had earned not only formidable goodwill and reputation but had also garnered attention from national and international media and featured in various magazines and newspapers, including on websites.

The Court observed that Starbucks’s mark “FRAPPUCCINO” had indeed attained goodwill and was well-known among the consumers. The use of identical marks by TeaQuila was unauthorized and proved to be detrimental for the goodwill and reputation that Starbucks had earned. The Court further observed that, as the identical marks were used with respect to similar goods and through similar trade channels, hence the customer base was common. Therefore, the Court held that Starbucks had successfully established a case for the grant of a permanent injunction.

The Court calculated the units of each beverage sold by TeaQuila from the month of November, 2018 when this infringing activity came to the knowledge of Starbucks and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Noting that Starbucks Corporation had filed the Advocates' Fee Certificate, the Court also awarded a sum of Rs. 9,60,100/- as the fee of the lawyers along with the Court Fee.

Have you heard about this, kamikaze branding strategy as the name suggests is a strategy where a brand launches a brand that is intended to fail and also damage the competitors in the market?

Sometime in the 1990s, PepsiCo launched a colourless soft drink named Crystal Pepsi, at that time consumers at large were equating clarity with purity and health. Crystal Pepsi became an instant hit owing to several clever marketing strategies and advertisements of PepsiCo. It was marketed as a caffeine-free "clear alternative" to normal colas. Its flavor was like the standard Pepsi, but the caramel colour was absent making the drink less "acidic" tasting within a short span of time Crystal Pepsi captured full percentage point of U.S. soft drink sales, amounting to approx. USD 474 million.

Source- https://the-soda-encyclopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Crystal_Pepsi

On the other hand, The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) was trying to recover from its launch New Coke launch. It was so bad that Coca-Cola was forced to introduce the original coke within 77 days rebranding it as Classic Coke. With a sharp decline in its market share, Coca-Cola needed an excellent comeback to redeem itself.

Coca-Cola launched a competing product with the brand Tab Clear which was never built to succeed but was a “suicidal” and “kamikaze” marketing effort of Coca-Cola to destroy Crystal Pepsi.

It was marketed with an emphasis on real cola flavour, indeed “a mouthful of flavour,” but in actuality, it was the original sugar-free diet cola that was “sweetened” with saccharine and never tasted good. This was revealed by Sergio Zyman, Head of US Marketing for Coca-Cola in an interview which was published in a book named “Killing Giants: 10 Strategies to topple the Goliath in your industry”.

Source- https://www.flickr.com/photos/paxtonholley/3987454368

Coca-Cola basically created a bad-tasting beverage on purpose and positioned it as a comparable/competing product to Crystal Pepsi consequently creating consumer confusion. This was done by placing Tab Clear in shelves in close proximity to Crystal Pepsi in all departmental stores and grocery stores. Coca-Cola capitalized on the lack of clarity of consumers regarding Crystal Pepsi and hence it caused the desired confusion it wanted. Consumers got confused into thinking Crystal Pepsi was also a sugar-free diet drink owing to the lack of understanding and misunderstood it as a medicinal drink. The image of a Coca-Cola Tab Clear bottle from the year 1992 has been reproduced for ready reference of the reader, one can see that the words SUGAR FREE and CALORIE FREE have been clearly written in Bold on the label, whereas Crystal Pepsi label only has its brand name written.

RESULT

The brand Tab Clear was dead in a span of a few months but so was Crystal Pepsi; Coca-Cola achieved what it wanted. Both brands were discontinued within 6 months from the launch of Tab Clear

LESSON TO BE LEARNT

General understanding says Crystal Pepsi didn’t exactly fail on its own merit. Coca-Cola targeted and eliminated it from the market, however from the standpoint of a Consultant, I would say, Pepsi lacked in providing clarity to its consumers about the nature of its drink. When Tab Clear was getting marketed as a sugar-free, calorie-free medicinal drink, PepsiCo should have devised a marketing strategy to differentiate its product from being confused with Tab Clear or as a medicinal sugar–free drink. Prompt action could have saved Crystal Pepsi from vanishing from the market, from being kamikazed!

Ed Sheeran won a copyright infringement case in the United Kingdom's High Court on April 6, 2022 over his 2017 song “Shape of You” which topped charts worldwide and currently stands as the most streamed song on Spotify. Sami Chokri, a.k.a. Sami Switch (Chokri) and his co-writer Ross O’Donoghue, had sued Sheeran and his co-writers, for plagiarism over alleged similarities between the two songs.

The matter dates to May 2018, when Chokri and co-writer O'Donoghue addressed the Performing Rights Society (PRS), a British music copyright collective that pays song royalties, that they should be credited as songwriters on “Shape of You.” As a result, PRS suspended payments to Sheeran for performances and broadcasts of the song. Sheeran, John McDaid of the band Snow Patrol, and Steven McCutcheon (co-writers of 'Shape of You') subsequently sought a declaration from a High Court in London to declare that they had not violated Chokri's copyright. Chokri and O'Donoghue responded with a counterclaim of copyright infringement.

Both parties submitted forensic musicologists' evidence to demonstrate the song's similarities and distinctions. Chokri alleged that Sheeran was a habitual plagiarist.

Against that, Sheeran denied having met Chokri or copying the song. He even sang parts of Nina Simone’s “Feeling Good” and Blackstreet’s “No Diggity” to demonstrate that the disputed melody in “Shape of You” was common in pop music.

After considering all the submissions and contentions of all the parties during the 11-day trial in London, the Court relied on the precedent of Francis Day & Hunter v. Bron, 1963, to outline the elements that needed to be established in order to determine whether there was a copyright infringement; namely, a degree of familiarity with the work, the work's character and capacity to impress the mind, the work's objective similarity, the probability that it was a coincidence, the existence of other possible influences, and the defendant's testimony regarding the presence or otherwise of the work.

In his ruling, Justice Zacaroli held that while Chokri’s shock after hearing “Shape of You” was understandable, given the similarities between the two songs, such coincidences were not uncommon. The Court further held that even if Sheeran was looking for any inspiration for the track, Chokri’s track was “far from the obvious source.”

Sheeran still has to face a pending trial in New York over another of his hits, “Thinking Out Loud,” as some of the owners of the rights to Marvin Gaye’s song “Let’s Get It On” have accused him of copying it.

Musicians have a long history of sampling other artists' work, in which segments of a song are included in a new composition developed for commercial interests. Additionally, whole songs have been re-recorded by other musicians, such as Jimi Hendrix's version of Bob Dylan's 'All Along the Watchtower' or Jeff Buckley's interpretation of Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah.' However, credit must be given, and appropriate licensing/permission sought from the original artist. Alternatively, the rights must be purchased from the proper copyright holder (s).

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Chugai) is a drug manufacturer operating in Japan. The company is headquartered in Tokyo. Historically stating, in the year – 1925, Juzo Ueno founded ‘Chugai Shinyaku Co. Ltd.’ and started importing and selling medicines. In 1927 the company started of the first own production. Following which, in the year 1943 name of the company was changed to Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. based in Tokyo.

Chugai’s patent titled ‘Solid Preparation Containing Tofogliflozin and Process for Producing Same’ (hereinafter “subject patent”) bearing Patent Application No. 201617023236 dated 6th July, 2016 provides a novel production method of solid preparations of the compound, the International Non-proprietary Name (INN) or generic name of which is Tofogliflozin compound. Tofogliflozin is used in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. The subject patent provides a tablet comprising Tofoglifozin with improved disintegration and dissolution properties as compared to the conventional production methods and is hence entitled to grant of a patent.

While the subject patent was in the National Phase of Application in the PCT Application in India, Chugai sought to seek priority for its Japanese Application dated 27th December, 2013 following which, the application was published on 31st August, 2016.

As a result of which, the First Examination Report was received on 8th March, 2019 in which, to state very briefly, the Controller objected to the claims of Chugai stating that those claims ought to be rejected because of their lack of novelty and inventive step along with industrial application under section 2(1)(j) [which states that "invention" means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application;] of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”).

Their claims were also rejected due to non-patentability under section 3[which enlists what are not inventions] of the Act and the lack of clarity and consciousness and definitiveness under section 10(5) and 10(4)(c) of the Act. Along with the objections, the FER also cited three documents pertaining to prior arts with respect to the claims made out in the above-mentioned application. After denying all the objections raised by the Controller, the matter was heard wherein; the Controller enlisted the reasons for its objections.

Chugai filed an appeal¹ in the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘Controller’ ) rejecting the patent application filed by Chugai.

The Court upheld the reason stated by the Controller that the present invention is "A method for producing a pharmaceutical composition which is a tablet comprising tofogliflozin as an active ingredient, wherein the tofogliflozin is present in a form of monohydrate crystal "tofogliflozin is a pre-existing drug in prior art. Inventor has used its monohydrate crystal form to prepare compositions. In which tofogliflozin is an active ingredient, which is already used in prior art as cited documents.”

The claims also could not see the light of success because they were very obviously hit by section 3(d) of the Act which states that inventions which are mere discovery of a new form of a known substance or the process related to the substance which does not result in enhancement of the efficacy of the already known efficacy are not patentable.

Therefore, the Court opined that Chugai is attempting to evergreen the earlier patent. The mere method for preparation of a tablet form of Tofogliflozin by direct compression method would not be patentable as the same would not constitute enhancement in therapeutic efficacy of the drug.

Lastly, even after reviewing all the data, there was nothing on record that could show as to what would be the effect of early or shorter duration of disintegration, what would be the extent of the said shorter duration of disintegration as also what would be the effect of the same on the treatment of a patient.

Based on the above reasons, the Court held that the subject patent application was nothing but an attempt to increase the term of the earlier patent for Tofogliflozin, which would not be permissible without a significant enhancement in therapeutic efficacy. Accordingly, the Patent Application No.201617023236 dated 6th July, 2016 filed by Chugai in respect of the subject patent has been rejected the Court.

¹Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v. Controller of Patents and Design - C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 4/2021 Date of Decision: 6th April, 2022

Victoria Foods Private Limited (Victoria) is engaged in the manufacture and sale of agro-based food products like wheat based products, pulses, pasta etc. under its brand “Rajdhani”. Victoria adopted the mark 'RAJDHANI' in 1966 and has multiple trademark registrations for the same in classes 29, 20, 31, and 32 in India as well as aborad.

Victoria was aggrieved by the fact that Rajdhani Masala Co., a proprietary concern of Mrs. Asha Rani Kohli through Mr. Pawan Kohli, and M/s New Rajdhani Masala Co. through its proprietor Mr. Ravi Kohli (jointly referred to as Kohli's) were using Victoria's registered mark RAJDHANI for the manufacture of spices and other products. Victoria approached the Delhi High Court² seeking an interim injunction against the Kohlis. Victoria claimed that it had been using the mark 'RAJDHANI' since 1966 and that the company was founded in 1983 and hence was the prior user of the mark RAJDHANI. Victoria contended that there was no evidence placed on record to show that the Kohlis' had ever used any of its products under the mark 'RAJDHANI', though it had been in business since the 1960s.

Therefore, the Court negated the plea of Kohlis' regarding prior user and current user of the mark RAJDHANI and held that a comparison of the two trademarks being used by the two parties made it clear that Kohlis were using the mark 'Rajdhani' for allied and cognate goods which were identical to that of Victoria.

Therefore, the Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Victoria restraining Kohlis from using in any manner the trademark'Rajdhani' or any other trademark which is deceptively similar to Victoria's trademark.

Source- Judgment

*We do not own any copyright in the above images. The same have been reproduced for representational and academic purposes only.

Thereafter, the Kohlis' filed an appeal challenging the said judgment which is pending before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

Meanwhile, Victoria filed an application alleging that Kohlis' were continuing to violate the injunction order. In the said application, Victoria alleged that Kohlis' were manufacturing the infringing products. Invoices and purchases from various retail stores in Delhi had been made of Rajdhani branded Red Chilli Powder, Coriander Powder, Dry Mango Powder, Dry Ginger Powder, Cumin Powder, and Turmeric Powder.

In addition to this Kohlis' had also advertised and offered their products on Indiamart.com, where there were listings of the impugned products.

Hence, Victoria prayed that contempt proceedings ought to be initiated against the Kohlis and requested the Court to direct the Kohlis' to file an affidavit of their assets and attach the same. Victoria further requested the Court to direct for the detention of Kohlis in the civil prison for the period as may be determined by the Court, and direct for sale of the properties attached in case the disobedience and breach continues and award compensation to Victoria out of the said sale proceeds.

The Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit Kohlis' premises. The Local Commissioner filed its report which revealed shocking state of affairs.

• The packaging of 'RAJDHANI' branded products was taking place in large volumes.

• The process of packaging was ongoing, through the packaging machines on which rolls of RAJDHANI MASALA were mounted.

• The manufacturing dates on the infringing products were of 15th September 2021 and 10th October 2021;

• Invoices were seized by the Local Commissioner which showed continuous sale after the judgment dated 1st September 2021;

• Photographs, invoices, and inventory, annexed along with the report, showing that the Kohlis' were in possession of hundreds of kilograms of packaging material and spices of various variants.

• The total inventory valued more than 43 tons, which included manufactured masala and pouches thereof.

The Local Commissioner also found several bags which were packed in 'RAJDHANI' branded packaging which were handed over to Victoria. In addition, the photographs annexed by the Local Commissioner in the report revealed further disturbing facts which could have very grave consequences. The said photographs showed that various products of other manufacturers such as Tata, Catch, Badshah masala, etc. were also found on the premises of Kohlis, including Catch Red Chilli Powder, Tata Pav Bhaji Masala, Tata Sampann Chicken Masala, bearing manufacturing dates of three to four years ago. Large cartons of Tata products and products manufactured by other third-party manufacturers were also found at the premises of Kohlis.

Hence, the Court observed that the aforementioned facts left no manner of doubt in the mind of the Court that the Kohlis' were brazenly violating the orders of the Court. The Court opined that "The photographs are extremely disturbing revealing. Considering that the products in question are spices being used in food products that are for human consumption, this Court is of the opinion that the Defendants are not merely indulging in violation of intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff, but are clearly committing various other offenses, under the Food Safety and Standards Act and Regulations, and other statutes related to adulteration of food."

Given the seriousness of the allegations in the case, the Court directed the factory of the Kohlis's to be remain sealed and no manufacturing shall be permitted in the said factory.

²VICTORIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED vs RAJDHANI MASALA CO. & ANR- CS (COMM) 108/2021 - 28th April 2022

Launched in 2008, JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (JA) is a media production company owned by actor John Abraham which has produced films like, ‘Vicky Donor’, ‘Madras Café’, ‘Parmanu’, and ‘Batla House’.

Around May 2020, JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. executed an Assignment Agreement with Gold Coin Motion Picture Company, for obtaining the Hindi remake rights in respect of a Malayalam-language film “Ayyappanum Koshiyum” (‘Malayalam film’) which was considered a commercial success in the South-Indian film industry and commenced with its pre-production in July 2020 soon-after.

Meanwhile, M/s Sithara Entertainments (Sithara), another film production company primarily involved in making South Indian films produced and released the Telugu remake of the Malayalam Film, titled ‘Bheemla Nayak’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Telugu remake’) in March 2022 on YouTube wherein it was suggested that a Hindi-dubbed version of the Telugu remake would also be released by this company in theatres soon.

*We do not own any copyright in the above images. The same have been reproduced for representational and academic purposes only.

JA filed a commercial suit was in the Delhi High Court against Sithara. JA contended that in light of the right to remake the Malayalam film in Hindi language vests exclusively with JA owing to the assignment of the right by the producer of the original Malayalam film. JA also contended that any unauthorized attempt by Sithara infringed upon the copyright and commercial rights of JA.

JA further contended that unless restricted by any conditions imposed by the parties themselves, the owner of the copyright in a cinematographic work, inter alia, had a right to subtitle and dub its work. JA submitted that, nature of rights within the deed of Assignment granted by Gold Coin Motion Picture Company in favour of Sithara was only restricted to remaking and dubbing of the original Malayalam film in Telugu language alone, hence, the copyright vested in favour of Sithara was restricted to only Telugu language.

JA supported this contention by referring to the precedent in the Madras High Court Division Bench case of Thiagarajan Kumararaja v. Capital Film Works (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, after considering all the contentions and submissions observed that the pre-requisites for a grant of an injunction were successfully satisfied by JA. Accordingly, till next date of the hearing, Sithara has been restrained from producing, exhibiting or communicating to the public, the Hindi-dubbed version of the Telugu film titled ‘Bheemla Nayak’ or any part thereof, in any manner.

Trivia

IRON CLAD CONTRACT - This came about from the ironclad ships of the Civil War. It meant something so strong it could not be broken.

*****

The liquid inside young coconuts can be used as a substitute for Blood plasma.

Subhankar Bhowmik had approached the Tripura High Court by way of a PIL, contending that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Regulations framed thereunder, did not prescribe any class of creditors to which the term "decree holder" belonged and therefore, without such prescription in the IBC, the class of "decree holders" fell into the residual class of "other creditors", which was clearly arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.

Hence, Bhowmik sought Section 3(10) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, to be declared as ultra vires as it failed to define the term “other creditors” and the impugned provisions may be interpreted harmoniously to include words “decree holders” as existing in Section 3(10) to be at par with “financial creditors” under Regulation 9A. Bhowmik also sought directions to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring that claims filed under a CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') is a recovery mechanism for the creditors of a corporate debtor.

The High Court while considering the matter referred to the word “creditor” as defined under Section 3(10) of the IBC which reads as, “creditor” means any person to whom a debt is owed and includes a financial creditor, an operational creditor, a secured creditor, an unsecured creditor and a decree-holder;” and observed that IBC had indeed recognized and given a statutory status, to the decree-holder as a ‘creditor’ under Section 3(10) of the IBC, by virtue of the decree. Since the decree cannot be executed by operation of the moratorium under Section 14, the IBC makes a provision to protect the interests of a decree holder by recognizing it as a creditor.

Bhowmik further contended that the decree holders as a class of creditors have been discriminated as they do not find a place on the Committee of Creditors in terms of Section 21 of the IBC and in terms of Regulation 16 of the CIRP Regulations. The High Court had rejected all the contentions and arguments of Bhowmik and held that IBC treats decree holders as a separate class.

Against this, Bhowmik preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. However the Apex Court said, "To put the steering wheel of a non-adversarial process to revive a corporate debtor, in the hands of an adversarial claimant, would defeat the very purpose of the IBC.”

Having found no merit in the contentions raised by Bhowmik, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the order passed by Tripura High Court thereby reiterating that the distinction of decree holders as creditors from “financial creditors” and “operational creditors” is an intelligible purpose of the IBC, and the same could not be stated to be either “discriminatory” or “arbitrary”.

Trivia

'A SHOT OF WHISKEY' - In the old west a .45 cartridge for a six-gun cost 12 cents, so did a glass of whiskey. If a cowhand was low on cash, he would often give the bartender a cartridge in exchange for a drink. This became known as a "shot" of whiskey

*******

BUYING THE FARM - This is synonymous with dying. During WW1 soldiers were given life insurance policies worth $5,000. This was about the price of an average farm so if you died you "bought the farm" for your survivors.

In what can be considered as a major development in the on-going battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, a patent has been granted for a homeopathic medicine which is effective against COVID-19 infection. Particularly, a patent has been granted to Dr. Rajesh Shah for a nosode composition which can be used for the prevention, alleviation and treatment of COVID-19 infection.

Three hundred and twelve (312) high risk individuals, i.e., persons exposed to individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19, were administered the nosode composition and of these 312 individuals, only 1.6% (5 individuals) of the individuals subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. As further determined by way of clinical trials, the nosode composition exhibits immunomodulatory effects when used on healthy human volunteers and also causes activation of innate immunity. Development of antibodies was also observed in few of the volunteers proving that the composition invokes an immune response in individuals.

It is also of great significance that the Ministry of Ayush has recognized that the nosode composition falls under the category of New Homeopathic Drug and directed that Dr. Rajesh Shah can apply to the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) for the necessary approval; a process which is currently underway.

Hence, there is hope that widespread use of this nosode composition will result in better management of COVID-19 infections and soften the physical, mental and financial blow dealt to humanity in case of resurgence of infections.

- Provided by my good friend, Phil Furgang.

- Provided by my good friend, Phil Furgang.

I wasn’t originally going to get a brain transplant, but then I changed my mind.

******

Which country’s capital has the fastest-growing population?

Ireland. Every day it’s Dublin.

******

I saw an ad for burial plots, and I thought: “That’s the last thing I need!”

******

Sleeping comes so naturally to me. I could do it with my eyes closed.

******

You’re not completely useless; you can always serve as a bad example.

******

*We do not own any copyright in the above image. The same has been reproduced for academic and representational purposes only.

Gucci (technically named as ‘House of Gucci’) is a Florence, Italy based high end luxury brand engaged in production and sale of handbags, ready-to-wear, footwear, and accessories, makeup, fragrances, and home decoration

If you have ever noticed the trademark of Italian luxury fashion house GUCCI, you would notice that there are two G’s in its trademark.

Actually, the famous double G logo of Gucci employs the two interlocking; bold “Gs” to represent the full name of its founder - Guccio Gucci in an extremely artistic manner.

Mr. Guccio Giovanbattista Giacinto Dario Maria Gucci was an Italian businessman and fashion designer who founded Gucci in the year 1921

- Adv. Chinmay Pawar

Mahajanpadas - Kamboj

The statue of Maharani Kambojika found in Mathura

Source – brajdiscovery.org

The Mahajanpada of ‘Kamboj’ shared its northern borders with present day Tajikistan and eastern Uzbekistan, eastern borders with present-day Jammu and Kashmir and southern borders with present-day Iran and southern Afghanistan. Many scholarly accounts suggest that the capital of Kamboj was probably ‘Rajapura’ (modern day Rajouri in Jammu and Kashmir).

The earliest reference to Kamboj is in the works of Pa?ini, a great Sanskrit language grammarian, around the 5th century BCE. Several literary sources mention that Kamboj was a republic.

The Kambojas were famous for their excellent breed of horses and as remarkable horsemen. The Kamboja cavalry offered their military services to other nations as well. There are numerous references to Kambojas having been requisitioned as cavalry troopers in ancient wars by other nations. Kamboj entered into conflict with Alexander as he invaded Central Asia.