Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 23-29)


Thematic Highlights

We have three thematic highlights:

Mr. Rajiv’s Post critiquing the UK Unwired Planet v. Huawei decision.
Inika’s Post on the “Darzi” TM.
Prashant’s Post on the constitutionality of the new “Well Known” marks registration procedure.

Mr. Rajiv, critiquing the UK High Court of Justice (Patents), covers the following ground:

i. After pointing out a large number of details and excerpts, he argues that patent portfolios are antithetical to the FRAND terms and promotion them is problematic on account of limited consistency of patents laws between various jurisdictions.
ii. Issues with determination of FRAND royalties.
iii. The issue with SEPs being treated differently.

Inika, discussing a recent DHC order restraining usage of the mark “Darzi”, covers the following issues raised in the order:

i. Despite “Darzi” translating to mean “a tailor“, the mark was, controversially, not considered to be descriptive on because “innovation to use it as a mark was deserving of trademark protection“.
ii. The Court’s holding that “tailoring” was descriptive, but “tailor” wasn’t.
iii. Other regular concerns (associated goodwill, essential features, et cetera).

Prashant, arguing against the constitutional validity of the Central Government laying down a new procedure for the registration of “Well Known” marks, discusses the following:

i. The basics of the new procedure as laid down in the TM Rules, 2017.
ii. The position prior to the coming into force of the latest rules.
iii. The conflict between the rules and the parent statute.
iv. The newly laid procedure being a case of excessive delegation.
v. Concerns associated with the criterion laid down for determining “Well Known” marks.

Topical Highlight

Pankhuri, apart from bringing you the news of the IRRO (Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation) challenging the DHC Photocopy judgment in the SC, gives you a basic run down of the case’s journey through the courts so far.

Other Posts

First up, Pankhuri brought to your notice the filing of a petition in the BHC challenging the Patent Office’s official answer to a Patent Agent Exam question. Her discussion points include:

i. A brief overview of the question.
ii. Petitioner’s reasoning for challenging the answer.

Next up, Rahul, scrutinizing the legal validity and issues surrounding Novex’s latest infringement claims against hotels in Kerala, discusses the following larger points:

i. The Leopold Cafe case and the distinction between S. 33 and S. 30 of the Copyright Act.
ii. The distinction between an agent and a “copyright society” (as defined under S. 33).
iii. Limitations of unregistered societies like Novex.

Next, Balaji came up with a witty post that discussed the recent Bangalore Civil Court order restricting sales of Chetan Bhagat’s book One Indian Girl on account of plagiarism. His discussion runs through the following:

i. The lack of reasoning provided in the order.
ii. Unaccounted for delay in the Plaintiff approaching the court.
iii. Lack of “irreparable harm” and substantial arguments in favour of the plaintiff.

After which, Balu provided us with a lucid analysis of a recent Delhi HC judgment that discussed the territorial jurisdiction issues that is a result of the conception of it in the Copyright & Trademark Acts, as distinct from the general conception under the Civil Procedure Code. The court finally held that a sufficient part of the cause of action did not arise in Delhi and consequently, directed the Plaintiff’s to approach the BHC.

Finally, we have Mathews bring us a tidbit on the Competition Commission of India ordering investigations against Pharma major Roche in relation to the cancer drug, Trastuzumab. After reproducing the allegedly violated statute ( S. 4(2)(c) Competition Act), he discusses some of the significant features of the order.

Notification Centre

Research Fellow Wanted
Centre for Innovation, IP and Competition, NLU Delhi
Remuneration of ₹50-60k
Min. Qualification: LLB
Details here.

International Developments

  1. European Court of Justice Tightens Screws on “Streaming”.
  2. Oscar Pistorius Trademarks His Name.
  3. Apple Files Patent for Wi-Fi Charging.
  4. “Blurred Lines” Appeal Brief Says Artists Can’t Copyright a Groove.

Prateek Surisetti

Alias: Suri Net Worth: 0$. NALSAR Batch of 2019. Characteristic Features: 1. Thinks he's funny. 2. Can't shut-up about having topped in Class II. 3. Takes deep personal offence when his cricketing talent is questioned. 4. Will definitely reference his status as World#1 @ Reflex Ball (A sport he invented), within 10 minutes of conversing with him. Notable Endeavours: 1. Founder Access Fitness (Movement at NALSAR that promotes utilization of public spaces for furtherance of sport and fitness) 2. Author "Good Morning Miss Hobby" 3. Travel Photographer (Antarctica, India) Details @ www.facebook.com/prateekss Contact: [email protected]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.