March 2015

Missed Opportunities and Confusing Precedents: Airef Engineers (P) Ltd. v. Vinod Shetty, Delhi High Court

/ By / Others

Earlier this month, the Delhi High Court ruled on Trade Secrets and other confidential information in Airef Engineers (P) Ltd. v. Vinod Shetty.  In an ex parte ruling the Court granted an injunction against an ex-employee of the petitioner-company without really identifying a prima facie case that the defendant had such information or that he had in any way misappropriated it. In this relatively short decision by Justice Najmi Wazri, the Court seems to have passed on an opportunity to […]

Missed Opportunities and Confusing Precedents: Airef Engineers (P) Ltd. v. Vinod Shetty, Delhi High Court Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit – TRAI OTT Consultations on OTT Licensing and Network Neutrality

/ By / Others

The Shreya Singhal judgment, which declared the censorious S.66A unconstitutional, has indubitably been a huge victory for free speech in India, from the perspective of the users and the intermediaries, both. Yet, the struggle for free speech on the cyberspace in India is not yet over. There are multiple issues that still need to be addressed, one of the most crucial of them being that of Network Neutrality (see our previous posts on this issue here and here). Recently, the

SpicyIP Tidbit – TRAI OTT Consultations on OTT Licensing and Network Neutrality Read More »

After IPRS, PPL next to claim that it is not a ‘copyright society’

/ By / Copyright

Last year, in a letter dated 20th May, Phonographic Performers’ Limited (PPL) withdrew its application for registration as a copyright society under The Copyright Act, 1957. The text of the letter, addressed to The Registrar of Copyrights, stated inter alia that PPL at the time of its inception in 1941 was registered as a ‘private company’ under the Companies Act. The letter also stated that PPL had submitted an application for registration as a copyright society in accordance with sections

After IPRS, PPL next to claim that it is not a ‘copyright society’ Read More »

PPL’s defamation notice: More subterranean censorship?

/ By / Copyright, Others

Certain members of the Telangana Chamber of Events Industry (TCEI) received a 9 para defamation notice from PPL for few comments made by them on Facebook. The TCEI is a non-government organization, which aims at developing the Events industry in the State of Telangana. The TCEI comprises of sub sectors such as events, light/sound/video, event caterers, event venues etc. It therefore also uses sound recordings for various events that it organizes. PPL, on the other hand, is a ‘company’ (actually

PPL’s defamation notice: More subterranean censorship? Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 22 – March 30, 2015)

/ By / Others

In what has been an extremely exciting week for SpicyIP, we have had several interesting developments, including Swaraj’s post on Data exclusivity, Anubha’s post on the IPRS, Dr. Arul’s post on copyright and access to law (more on each below), but the the SpicyIP Highlight of the Week goes to Madhulika’s two posts on the Glenmark-Merck dispute. In her first post on the issue, Madhulika analyses the injunction granted to Merck by the Delhi High Court against Glenmark, for the

SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 22 – March 30, 2015) Read More »

China rules on adjusted royalty base for SEP licensing

/ By / Competition Law

Earlier this month the Chinese Anti-trust authority (NDRC) gave its decision in the Qualcomm matter involving Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law (AML).  This decision is a landmark decision where Qualcomm was found to have engaged in anti-competitive conduct relating to the licensing of standard essential patents (“SEPs”) for wireless communication technology and baseband chip sales.  The original decision is available here.  While a summary of the decision (based on Google translate) is also provided in this post, I have put in my comments

China rules on adjusted royalty base for SEP licensing Read More »

IPRS tries to derail enquiry into its affairs, loses battle in Bombay High Court

/ By / Copyright

The Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) continues on its litigation streak by challenging government orders and bothering parties with impunity (last heard, IPRS was demanding hefty royalties from the Indian railways). This time though IPRS was at the receiving end, when the Bombay High Court  rejected IPRS’ challenge to an enquiry instituted by the Department of Higher Education, Copyright Office into its allegedly dishonest practices. Not only did IPRS file writ petitions to quash the order instituting the enquiry, but also

IPRS tries to derail enquiry into its affairs, loses battle in Bombay High Court Read More »

Ericsson v. Intex, part II – The Perils and Pitfalls of Software Patenting

/ By / Patent

The first part of this post looked at the Ericsson v. Intex judgment as a whole, while this second part is looking at the specific potential influence it can have on the issue of Software Patents in India. We have addressed the issue of software patenting, in India and beyond, on multiple occasions – specifically, here, here, here and here. The Indian position has been quite ambiguous for a very long time – or rather, as Prof Shamnad Basheer puts

Ericsson v. Intex, part II – The Perils and Pitfalls of Software Patenting Read More »

Data exclusivity back on the table for India

/ By / Data Exclusivity, Drug Regulation, Others

D.G. Shah, Secretary General of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance sends us news that will be of interest to many of our readers. He says, “… Government plans to introduce a Pesticides (Amendment) Bill in the Parliament during the current session. The Bill has a provision that not only makes India’s Intellectual Property (IP) regime TRIPS Plus but would also eliminate competition and create legal monopoly for agro-chemicals and pesticides making them unaffordable to small farmers. The Bill proposes to introduce

Data exclusivity back on the table for India Read More »

Comparative Advertising ― Havells v. Eveready: Who’s the brightest of them all?

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Trademark

As is known, every product has different features/characteristics and advertisers like to highlight only the most advantageous features and consequently remain silent on the weaker aspects of their products. In this regard, the main issue in Havells v. Amritanshu was whether or not an advertisement which compares one product with a similar rival product must necessarily compare all its features in order for it to be an ‘honest’ advertisement. The Delhi High Court held that failure to compare all the

Comparative Advertising ― Havells v. Eveready: Who’s the brightest of them all? Read More »

Scroll to Top