Competition Law

SpicyIP Tidbit: The Competition Act v. The Patent Act: Catch 22

The Supreme Court last week issued notice on a special leave petition filed by the Competition Commission of India(CCI) against the Delhi High Court’s decision in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Competition Commission of India and Anr. The main question before the SC is whether the provisions of Patent Act would prevail over the Competition Act in cases alleging anti competitive behaviour or abuse of dominant position.  Background In that judgement, discussed by Praharsh here, the primary question was whether an agreement relating to protection of […]

SpicyIP Tidbit: The Competition Act v. The Patent Act: Catch 22 Read More »

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

[This post has been co-authored with Jyotpreet Kaur, Tejaswini Kaushal, Praharsh Gour, and Swaraj Barooah].  As 2023 comes to an end, in line with our annual tradition, we take stock of the top IP developments that occurred this year. And as we move to the cusp of the new year, here’s to wishing our readers a very happy and healthy year ahead! As in previous years, we have divided these developments into five categories: a) Top 10 IP Judgements/Orders (Topicality/Impact)

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023 Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 24 – July 30)

Last week saw some pretty interesting discussions on the blog.  Detailed posts analysing the recently-pronounced landmark judgements in Ericsson v CCI and Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla & Others were published along with a quick post on DPIIT’s notice over collection of royalties by copyright societies.  This weekly review is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Yashna Walia. Yashna is a fifth-year law student at UILS, Panjab University, Chandigarh. Her area of interest lies in IP and corporate law. Highlights of The Week SpicyIP Tidbit: The

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 24 – July 30) Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 10- January 16)

After another busy week here at SpicyIP, we bring out the quick summaries of the 6 blogposts that were put up, along with 12 case summaries and national and international IP developments for you. Important IP cases that we’re missing out on? Especially from other High Courts? Please let us know so we can include them!   Highlights of the Week Bill to Decriminalise IP Offences Misses the Mark and Dilutes Significant Provisions Discussing the proposed amendments to the IP

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 10- January 16) Read More »

Competition law flexibilities for pharma patents? Vifor v CCI

Story so far: Recently, the Delhi High Court was tasked with examining an interesting competition and IP case. An informant (requesting confidentiality) filed a competition law complaint against Vifor International AG (Vifor) before the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Unfortunately, the facts of the complaint are not clear from the Delhi High Court decision since the complaint was filed seeking confidentiality.   Some facts can be gleaned from the arguments of both sides. It appears that Vifor holds patents for

Competition law flexibilities for pharma patents? Vifor v CCI Read More »

Revised Non-Personal Data Governance Framework and Intellectual Property Implications – Part II

In Part I of this post, I highlighted the possible copyright and trade secret protection over the data mandated to be shared under the Revised Non-Personal Data (NPD) Governance Framework (the Report/Revised Report), and how the Report either overlooks or misunderstands these possible IP protections. In this part, I discuss the shortcomings in the Revised Report’s justifications for overriding IP protection and other rights over NPD. I also briefly explore alternatives to the Report’s heavy-handed regulatory architecture by turning to

Revised Non-Personal Data Governance Framework and Intellectual Property Implications – Part II Read More »

Revised Non-Personal Data Governance Framework and Intellectual Property Implications – Part I

The Committee of Experts on Non-Personal Data (NPD) Governance Framework headed by Kris Gopalakrishnan, constituted by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had released its first Report in July, 2020. I had written about the Report for SpicyIP here. In December last year, a revised Report (“the Report/Revised Report” hereinafter) was released by the Committee with the goal of unlocking economic benefit from non-personal data, creating a data sharing framework, establishing community-based rights over NPD and addressing potential harms to privacy

Revised Non-Personal Data Governance Framework and Intellectual Property Implications – Part I Read More »

Dr Vikas Khaturia

The Antitrust App Store Wars Come to India

We’re pleased to bring our readers an insightful post by Dr. Vikas Kathuria looking into the latest ‘digital gatekeeping’ controversy that Big Tech has found itself in in India, with the Competition Commission of India having ordered an investigation into Google’s conduct relating to Google Pay and the Play Store. Dr. Kathuria is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich and was formerly a Research Associate at the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

The Antitrust App Store Wars Come to India Read More »

Non-Personal Data Governance Framework and Intellectual Property Implications

The Committee of Experts on Non-Personal Data (NPD) Governance Framework, constituted by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology released its Report on July 12, 2020. The Report purports to be a framework for governance of NPD, meant to grant access to NPD to industry players and the government for overarching public purposes. In order to increase the competitiveness of local and small enterprises and spur innovation, the Report is aimed at mandatory sharing of data to create economic advantages

Non-Personal Data Governance Framework and Intellectual Property Implications Read More »

Ritter Sport Wins Trademark for Square Chocolates: Bitter Consequences of Trademark Maximalism

In a surprising ruling by the Federal Supreme Court of Germany (BGH) recently, well known German chocolate brand, Ritter Sport (“Ritter”) won exclusive rights to square packaging for its chocolates. The Court rejected the appeal by competitor Milka, a Swiss chocolate company that had been trying for almost a decade to challenge Ritter’s trademark protection for shape. Decision and Reasoning The Judges held that the square shape of the bar was not functional as it did not add any essential

Ritter Sport Wins Trademark for Square Chocolates: Bitter Consequences of Trademark Maximalism Read More »

Scroll to Top