CH Unni of the Mint carried a report on this decision. See also this report by PB Jayakumar in the Business Standard (unfortunately, there’s been a small misquote: the provision governing “public ordre or morality” is section 3(b) and not section 3(d), as stated in this piece).
Many of you wrote to ask for a copy of the decision. I’ve now uploaded this onto the SpicyIP website. Enjoy the rather long winded 192 page discussion (of which 120 pages or so merely reproduces counsel submissions!).
The decision ought to have been uploaded onto the IPAB website. And if any of you from the IPAB or with good connections with the IPAB are reading, please exhort them to have a policy of timely updates. Some months back, I wrote to the IPAB requesting that they upload all their decisions. Unfortunately, I never so much as received a reply. Here is the text of the letter written to them:
From: Shamnad Basheer
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 09:36:31 +0530
Conversation: Decisions of the IPAB
Subject: Decisions of the IPAB
By way of introduction, I am a professor of law, focusing on intellectual property issues. I also run a blog and website titled SpicyIP, which is educational in nature and aims to increase awareness around IP issues in India.
I’ve been tracking the IPAB website and decisions and note that only decisions rendered till 2008 have been put up on the website. In the interests of transparency and in order to further greater review of these decisions which impact the parties and the public, may I please request you to upload current decisions as well? A line in response would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much,
MHRD Professor in IP Law
National University of Juridical Sciences
NUJS Bhavan, 12 LB BLOCK
Salt Lake City, Sector III
Calcutta – 700098, India