Our topical highlight is Prateek’s post on a recent Delhi High Court order that restricts the unauthorised broadcasting / transmission of the Indian Premier League 2017. Sony had approached the Court, fearing that multi system operators / local cable operators such as the Defendants would broadcast IPL without a license, which the Court accepted and consequentially passed an ex parte ad interim injunction for any unauthorised broadcast. The Court additionally appointed Mr. Jamal Akhtar and Ms. Hamsini Shankar as Local Commissioners to among other things, ascertain whether any unauthorized broadcast was taking place.
Our thematic highlight for the week was Balu’s post on a constitutional analysis of the IP issues in the Finance Bill, 2017. Through the post, he examines the debate in the Lok Sabha in detail, and specifically looks into the justification of bringing the concerned amendments within the scope of the Bill. He notes that while the hindrance to challenging the validity of the Bill are Articles 110 and 122, he argues that perhaps an argument can be made of this being a gross irregularity or violation of the constitutional provision.
Starting off the week, we had a post by Divij Joshi, as his second submission for the Fellowship. He brought us an extremely interesting post on whether DRM should be part of the open web. He begins by explaining the role of the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) and EME (Encrypted Media Extensions) standards and the use of the HTML5 standard by W3C. He notes that while these standards have been used to allow the implementation of Content Decryption Modules (CDM) for decryption, such use has been protested by those in favour of these standards being used to facilitate DRM rights.
I was next with my post on Amul’s recent trouble in the Bombay High Court over an advertisement that seemingly disparages other ‘frozen desserts’. I delved into both trademark disparagement, as well as comparative advertising, as might be applicable to the given case. We hope that an order is passed in the case at the earliest.
Prateek then wrote on the Annual Report (2015-2016) compiled by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications. He first points out certain discrepancies in the report, then goes on to list out the chapters, and the important figures as highlighted in the report.
Pankhuri made three important announcements this week: First, was the First Munich Conference Series on Ethics in Innovation to be held between June 23rd, and 27th, 2017. All revenant details can be found here. Second, registration has commenced for the May-June 2017 session of the online certificate course on IPR and competition law conducted by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI). The last date for registration is April 30, 2017. For further details, please read here. Third, that FICCI is celebrating World IP Day 2017 by organizing a Conference on Innovation to Drive Business and Competitiveness on April 28, 2017. Please see here for details.
Our next post was Mathews interesting analysis of the Censor Board’s mandate of the phrase ‘Mann Ki Baat’ (for the uninitiated – it is the title of Prime Minister Modi’s monthly radio program) being scrapped from the upcoming film ‘Sameer’. Mathews first looks into relevant provisions of the Cinematographic Act, 1952, and compares Section 5B to Article 19(2) of the Constitution. He then examines whether the Government enjoys copyright over the phrase, and questions the rules in place for the governance of CBFC.
Prateek then brought us his post on the dispute surrounding the registration over the domain name ‘www.googlee.in’. He first very succinctly summarises the domain name registration policy in India, and then delves into the case at hand. The dispute centres around the invalidation of an arbitral award between the two parties, which the Court dismissed – upholding the award to transfer the ‘googlee’ domain name to Google.
Next, Madhurima Garde, our Fellowship applicant brought us her second submission for the Fellowship: her analysis of the issues surrounding the ownership of Khadi amidst the KVIC/Fabindia dispute. She first delves into the details of the dispute between Fabindia and KVIC, and the need for a Khadi mark Regulation Certificate. After discussing the dispute with regards to the ownership of ‘Khadi’, she analyses the application made for a geographical indication for the same.
- China says trademarks registered equally as Ivanka Trump gets more approved
- Acacia escalates Apple patent fight with new infringement claims
- Snap acquires the crucial geofilter patent from Mobli for a record $7.7M