November 2015

Call for Submissions: Indian Journal of International Economic Law

/ By / Publication

We are very happy to announce this call for submissions from the Indian Journal of International Economic Law. Submissions are invited for 2 upcoming issues, one of which is focussed on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. More details below and in the IJIEL Final Call for Submissions document: The Indian Journal of International Economic Law is now accepting submissions for its upcoming issues – Volume 8(1) and 8(2). As you all know, the Indian Journal of International Economic Law (IJIEL) is a law journal published […]

Call for Submissions: Indian Journal of International Economic Law Read More »

Trade Secrets and the Right to Information: Thoughts on Ferani Hotels v. State Information Commissioner [Part I]

/ By / Others, Overlaps in IP, Trade Secret

A recent judgement [PDF] from the Bombay High Court has thrown the spotlight on the interplay between IP protection and the Right to Information Act. Over the course of two posts, I’ll summarise the judgement and try to engage with some of the issues that inhabit its penumbra. By their very nature, the values sought to be protected by IP law seem to be at odds with those sought to be protected by the RTI Act. The former is aimed

Trade Secrets and the Right to Information: Thoughts on Ferani Hotels v. State Information Commissioner [Part I] Read More »

CTR v. Sergi- Interim Injunction or Mini Trial?

/ By / Patent

[We bring to you a guest post by Prashant Reddy on the recent CTR v. Sergi patent case decided by the Bombay High Court. In this post, Prashant offers a lucid and detailed critique of Justice Gautam Patel’s judgment] Justice Gautam Patel has recently issued an interim injunction in a long running patent infringement lawsuit between Indian company CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. (“CTR”) which is the owner of patent no. 202302 and the French company Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

CTR v. Sergi- Interim Injunction or Mini Trial? Read More »

Can IPRs be treated as ‘plant’ under Section 43(3) of the Income Tax Act?

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

On 15th October, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT (judgment available here) on the issue whether the acquisition of trademarks, copyright and technical know-how can be treated as “plant and machinery” so that depreciation/amortization may be claimed on them under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Facts of the Case: Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (MGBW) is a beedi-manufacturing business, which was established in 1940 as a partnership firm. The

Can IPRs be treated as ‘plant’ under Section 43(3) of the Income Tax Act? Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Reviews (19th to 31st October)

/ By / Others

(Posting on behalf of Kartik Chawla.) The SpicyIP Highlight of the Fortnight period is Thomas’ post on the Enforcement Directorate attaching IPRS’ assets. He discusses the bases of the allegations, and makes note of the fact that an attachment by the ED indicates that there is the ED at least has reasons for believing that the proceeds in question are the proceeds of a crime. He discusses the history of the IPRS, shrouded in mystery as it is, and how

SpicyIP Weekly Reviews (19th to 31st October) Read More »

Scroll to Top