August 2016

Where do I Carry on Business?: The Jurisdictional Conundrum post IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (Part II)

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

Delhi High Court’s Interpretation of Dalia In Ultrahome Constructions v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, a Division Bench of the Delhi HC had an opportunity to interpret IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia.  The Plaintiff was the owner and used the mark “AMRAPALI” inter alia in relation to hotels. It had its registered office in Delhi. The Defendant was using the impugned mark “AMBAPALI GREEN” in Deogarh (Jharkhand), where the Plaintiff also operating a hotel under its AMRAPALI trademark. The Plaintiff brought a suit […]

Where do I Carry on Business?: The Jurisdictional Conundrum post IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (Part II) Read More »

Where do I Carry on Business?: The Jurisdictional Conundrum post IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (Part I)

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

In a previous post, I covered the Bombay HC’s decision on jurisdiction in copyright and trademark litigation in India. As we saw there, the crux of the discussion comprised an analysis of where a person can be said to be “carrying on business” and especially if that place can be a corporate plaintiff’s subordinate office as opposed to its head office. In Manugraph India Limited V. Simarq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, the Bombay HC answers in the negative and

Where do I Carry on Business?: The Jurisdictional Conundrum post IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (Part I) Read More »

Second time [un]lucky? Bombay HC denies Raymond Ltd. rights over ‘Raymond’

/ By / Trademark

‘If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again’, is something Raymond Limited (‘RL’) seems to have imbibed into their litigation strategy. In 2006, RL filed a suit for infringement against Raymond Pharmaceuticals (‘RP’) for the use of ‘Raymond’ (RL’s ‘trademark’) in their corporate name. While a 2007 appeal to a Notice of Motion filed in the suit was dismissed by the Bombay High Court in 2010, the main suit is yet to be heard. The order passed in 2010

Second time [un]lucky? Bombay HC denies Raymond Ltd. rights over ‘Raymond’ Read More »

SpicyIP Events: Workshop on SEPs: Patents and Antitrust Issues in the High – Tech World

/ By / Event, Sponsored

SpicyIP is happy to announce that the Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Competition (CIIPC) at National Law University, Delhi is organising a one-day workshop by Prof. Jay Kesan and Dr Kirti Gupta on SEPs: Patents and Antitrust Issues in the High-Tech World, on 27th August 2016 (Saturday) from 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The venue for the workshop is India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003. About the workshop CIIPC is committed to furthering the academic dialogue surrounding innovation, intellectual property, and competition law, with a view towards shaping the legal and policy

SpicyIP Events: Workshop on SEPs: Patents and Antitrust Issues in the High – Tech World Read More »

Consilience 2016 – and it’s a wrap!

/ By / Others

As we had announced on the blog earlier, SpicyIP celebrated its tenth anniversary in May this year with Consilience 2016, conceptualised by SpicyIP and NLS’ Law and Technology Society, supported by the MHRD Chair of IP, NLS. The event was supported by SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre), Texas A&M University, Cellular Association of India, Free Software Movement Karnataka, and Obhaan and Associates. We are finally releasing the Report of the proceedings of the event. As I had mentioned in my

Consilience 2016 – and it’s a wrap! Read More »

Bombay HC pulls no punches, orders ISP to comply with John Doe

/ By / Copyright

Over the last month, we’ve been tracking the Dishoom litigation in the Bombay High Court, a matter which may mark a paradigm shift in Indian copyright jurisprudence. In cases where plaintiffs approach the court for John Doe orders against unnamed online infringers, the Bombay HC imposed strict safeguards against overreach, holding that entire websites could not be blocked in situations where only particular URLs were found to be prima facie infringing. However, the website-wide scope of John Doe orders was only one infirmity in the current

Bombay HC pulls no punches, orders ISP to comply with John Doe Read More »

Guest Post: IPAB dismisses a patentee’s plea to surrender his patent

/ By / Patent

We are happy to bring to you a guest post by Sribindu Chivukula. She graduated in Chemistry from State University of New York, Buffalo in the year 2012. She is a registered Indian patent agent and is presently associated with a leading law firm based out of Delhi. All the views expressed in the post are her personal views. Title: IPAB dismisses a patentee’s plea to surrender his patent Author: Sribindu Chivukula Section 63 of the Patents Act entitles a patentee to

Guest Post: IPAB dismisses a patentee’s plea to surrender his patent Read More »

Searching for Situs: Delhi High Court holds IP transfer by foreign based entity not taxable in India

/ By / Trademark

A division bench (DB) of the Delhi High Court held that income accruing from the transfer of IP by a foreign based entity cannot be subject to income tax in India.  DB resolved an 8-year old dispute and finally settled that the situs of intangible capital assets, such as IP, is deemed to be the same as the situs of its owner. This judgment is available here, and the impugned order passed by the Authority on Advance Rulings (AAR) is

Searching for Situs: Delhi High Court holds IP transfer by foreign based entity not taxable in India Read More »

My views on Session on ‘Open Standards’ in SpicyIP Consilience, 2016

/ By / Competition Law, Overlaps in IP, Patent

 In the recently concluded SpicyIP Consilience 2016 Conference at NLS, we had an interesting session on Open Standards, FRAND and Royalty-Free models (pertaining to licensing of Standard Essential Patents). Mr. Rajiv Choudhary, Prof. Yogesh Pai, Mr. Navneet Hariharan and Prof. Natasha Nayak spoke in this session. The session discussed some interesting issues pertaining to: a) creation of value by royalty free standards; b) working of FRAND; c) creation of value by standards; and d) royalty-free model vis-a-vis FRAND model. If you

My views on Session on ‘Open Standards’ in SpicyIP Consilience, 2016 Read More »

Is Prasar Bharati having the cake and eating it too: Star Sports v. Prasar Bharati (Supreme Court)

/ By / Copyright

(This post has been co-authored with Prashant Reddy) The Supreme Court ruled that broadcasters broadcasting sporting events of national importance must provide ‘clean’ feeds to Prasar Bharati. The issue in this case revolved around interpreting Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 (“Act”) and Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Rules, 2007 (“Rules”). The purpose of the Act is to ensure access to a larger audience of listeners/viewers of sporting events

Is Prasar Bharati having the cake and eating it too: Star Sports v. Prasar Bharati (Supreme Court) Read More »

Scroll to Top