We have two topical highlights for this week: the first by Prashant and the second by Prof. Basheer.
In his post, Prashant reported the Bombay High court’s reaction to Microsoft’s plea for an Anton Piller order. Here, the court lambasted Microsoft for misleading the court and presenting grossly incorrect and exaggerated figures or alleged copyright violations in order to obtain these orders. As per Balu’s update on the matter, the parties have decided to enter into a mutually agreed settlement.
Professor Basheer updated us on the John Doe Orders being denied to the movie, Dishoom by the Bombay High Court. Here, he discusses Justice Patel’s refusal to grant an injunction to block URLs of whole websites without verification of the legitimacy of such claims. He notes that this welcome development might well spell out the end of the John Doe era, and usher in a balanced framework for the pronouncement of such orders.
Our theme based highlight for the week would certainly be Ritvik’s insightful and detailed analysis on the Bombay High Court’s judgement on the interpretation of the landmark Sanjay Dalia case. Here, he discusses that the Court has interpreted the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act to mean that plaintiff could file a suit in a local jurisdiction of his registered office, irrespective of the location of the defendants and that of the accrual of cause of action.
Next, we had Balu and Pankhuri’s post on the Mc-Mac controversy wherein the EU General Court potentially ruled that McDonald’s, the US fast food company, had the exclusive right to use “Mac” and “Mc” in the EU for foodstuffs and beverages as it upheld the cancellation of the mark “MACCOFFEE” on the basis of the mark “McDonald’s”.
We had a stellar guest post this week by Akshata Ankolekar, Associate, Solomon and Roy, Intellectual Property Services, where she discussed the Bombay High Court’s judgement involving the claim of Reliance Industries against Concord Enviro Systems for the infringement of its logo. The Court ruled that the two logos were entirely distinct and there was no question of confusion. It was thus held that Reliance was not entitled to claim any relief.
Prashant wrote another interesting post updating us on the litigation between Indian generic companies and Roche, which is no stranger to controversy. Roche and Biocon are suing each other for contempt in the Delhi High Court. In the meanwhile, Roche is also engaged in the litigation Hetero launched against it in the Delhi High Court over the launch of a biosimilar of Roche’s Avastin.
Prateek brought us his piece on the recent notice published by UGC, requesting universities and colleges to introduce Intellectual Property Rights as part of their elective system, i.e. as an optional course for students. He notes that this move is a positive step in line with the National IPR Policy and hopes that Universities/colleges implement the IP discourse in a larger innovation context.
Our last post for the week was Rajiv’s Titbit informing us that the Patent Agent exam shall now be held before December 2016. Interested candidates must check out the website he created to help prepare for Part II of the exam.