June 2017

Exide India Settles 19-Year-Old Trademarks Dispute

/ By / Trademark

Last month, in a landmark development, Exide Industries (Exide India) entered into a settlement with US based Exide Technologies (Exide US) over the use of the disputed ‘EXIDE’ trademark. I call it a landmark development for two reasons – a) it is a decision that has put an end to a dispute, which has gone on for almost two decades and b) according to media reports, the terms of the settlement indicate that Exide US has effectively waived any right/ […]

Exide India Settles 19-Year-Old Trademarks Dispute Read More »

Sugar Hero v. Food Network: Copyright Infringement of ‘How-To’ Food Videos

/ By / Copyright

In an interesting case from the United States, an independent food blogger/entrepreneur has sued The Food Network for copyright infringement. Upon perusal of the IPKat coverage of the issue including the complaint (linked in the same coverage and available here), the factual matrix supporting the claim becomes fairly clear. The Facts Sugar Hero is a website run by blogger turned entrepreneur, Elizabeth Labau. Through this website, she shares her innovative, self-created recipes in creative ways including videos, pictures, etc. This

Sugar Hero v. Food Network: Copyright Infringement of ‘How-To’ Food Videos Read More »

Madras HC’s Seemingly Ad-Hoc Portfolio Allocation & Possible Alternatives

/ By / Others

I write to bring you an update regarding the Madras HC portfolio allocation. Furthermore, given the seemingly ad-hoc nature of allocation, we felt it appropriate to use this opportunity to rekindle the discussion surrounding portfolio allocations. But first, the update. The allocation of IP matters, for 1st June onwards, was as follows: Kalaiyarasan J.: IP matters upto the year 2010. Anita Sumanth J.: IP matters from the year 2014. Ravindran J. (V. Parthiban J., in former’s absence): IP matters between

Madras HC’s Seemingly Ad-Hoc Portfolio Allocation & Possible Alternatives Read More »

The Philosophy Behind the ‘Physical Copy’ Doctrine

/ By / Copyright

This guest post has been written by MV Swaroop (with inputs from Shrey Patnaik). In this post, Swaroop and Patnaik analyse, in the context of the Raabta dispute, whether the producer of a film has the standing to sue for infringement, or if such action can only be brought by the scriptwriter. Our earlier posts on the Raabta dispute are available here and here. The Raabta-Magadheera controversy fizzled out a few days ago, with the producers of Magadheera withdrawing their suit. Then,

The Philosophy Behind the ‘Physical Copy’ Doctrine Read More »

SpicyIP Events: Trade Talk on IP, Innovation & Public Interest To Be Hosted by Centre for WTO Studies Tomorrow

/ By / Others

We are pleased to inform you that as part of the 4th Joint Academy, the Centre for WTO Studies is also hosting a series of Trade Talks. These are short talks on contemporary issues in world trade that are presented by the Resource Persons of the Joint Academy.  The details of the Third Talk are provided below: Trade Talk by Mrs. Jayashree Watal, Counsellor, Intellectual Property Division, World Trade Organization, Geneva Topic– IP, Innovation and Public Interest Date: Wednesday, 21 June 2017

SpicyIP Events: Trade Talk on IP, Innovation & Public Interest To Be Hosted by Centre for WTO Studies Tomorrow Read More »

Roche v. Cipla- The Sense of An Ending

/ By / Patent

In what could possibly be the end of the Roche v. Cipla saga, Cipla has withdrawn the SLP it had filed in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court Order of 2015. The Apex Court allowed Cipla to withdraw its Petition owing to a settlement reached between the parties, with Cipla acknowledging the validity of Roche’s patent rights in Erlotinib Hydrochloride. Brief History The Roche v. Cipla saga concerns the patent rights in the compound Erlotinib Hydrochloride (Patent IN

Roche v. Cipla- The Sense of An Ending Read More »

Madras Bar Association Challenges the Constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2017 and the New Tribunal Rules

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

As recently reported by Bar & Bench, the Madras Bar Association has filed a petition before the Madras High Court challenging the constitutionality of Sections 156 to 189 of the Finance Act, 2017 as also the Tribunal, Appellate and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 that I had written about over here. A bench of the Madras High Court headed by Chief Justice Indira Banerjee has issued notice to the government asking it to

Madras Bar Association Challenges the Constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2017 and the New Tribunal Rules Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 11- June 17)

/ By / Others

(This Weekly Review was written by SpicyIP fellow Sreyoshi Guha) This week’s thematic highlight was the two-part guest post by Eashan Ghosh on the distinction between an action for trademark infringement under section 29(1) and that under section 29(2) of the Trademarks Act. Part 1 begins by highlighting this distinction as part of the contentions raised during a recent trademark infringement case before the Bombay High Court. Eashan argues that both the sections are embedded in an ‘activity-comparison-condition’ chain that the

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 11- June 17) Read More »

A Nuanced Trademark Distinction: 29(1) vs 29(2)? – Part II by Eashan Ghosh

/ By / Trademark

(Continued….) Part I is available here. Distinguishing Conditions / Effects The third observation from the outcome table is that the key difference between Sections 29(1) and (2), as the defence in Ajanta hinted at, lies in the further condition / effect required to be met. To be clear, the three conditions / effects in issue are: “use in a manner as to render the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trademark” under Section 29(1); “use in

A Nuanced Trademark Distinction: 29(1) vs 29(2)? – Part II by Eashan Ghosh Read More »

A Nuanced Trademark Distinction: 29(1) vs 29(2)? – Part I by Eashan Ghosh

/ By / Trademark

Eashan Ghosh graduated as a gold medalist from NLSIU, Bangalore and with distinction honours from the University of Oxford. He has been in practice as an intellectual property advocate and consultant in New Delhi since 2011, and has taught intellectual property law at NLU Delhi and NLSIU, Bangalore. He has published articles in international journals including the European Intellectual Property Review, World Trademark Review, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice and the Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property.

A Nuanced Trademark Distinction: 29(1) vs 29(2)? – Part I by Eashan Ghosh Read More »

Scroll to Top