Author name: Prateek Surisetti

Arguing against the recent recognition of “Banglar Rasogolla” as a Geographical Indicator on account of being against both the letter and spirit of the GI Act, Sreyoshi discusses the following areas: i. The technical pit-falls (Nature of applicant, uniqueness of product to Bengal). ii. Possibility of the mark’s distinctiveness getting eroded. iii. Ulterior effects on traders. iv. Questions over the lack of opposition at the stage of examination. Next, Pankhuri brought to your notice that the Indian Journal of Law

Thematic Highlight First up, Dr. Dierkes’s and Dr. Sharma, on the German grant of Compulsory License of “raltegavir“, lucidly compares the law between the German and Indian jurisprudence. Their discussion points were as follows: i. A brief introduction to CLs. ii. Events leading up to the German grant of the CL. iii. German Jurisprudence concerning interpretation of “public interest“. iv. Comparison of German CL Jurisprudence with India’s. Then, Prof. Basheer lamented media misreporting and the lack of nuance in media

Thematic Highlight Harshavardhan came up with an entertaining post on the recent controversy surrounding the title of the Tamil film “Mersal“. The problem arose because another producer registered a variant of the title with the writer’s association, but the producer of “Mersal” trade marked it later. Using the interesting narrative technique of a drama, he brought some fishy facts to light. Even if the topic doesn’t interest you much, I would recommend this piece purely for the narrative style and