Our thematic highlight of the week was the guest post by Ms. Simrat Kaur on the IFPI annual global music report and the state of the global recording industry. The post highlights the industry’s grouses about intermediary safe harbour laws leading to a value gap, which they are hoping to capitalize on by evolving new legal principles.
Our topical highlight was Sreyoshi’s post on the final hearing in the infamous case of the Monkey’s Copyright. This appeal was an affirmation of the earlier decision by the district judge, and affirmed the principle that the Monkey had no locus standi to sue for copyright infringement. The judgement proceeded largely on the issue of whether a non-human person could claim copyright, and it would be interesting to see how courts view the precedential value of this judgement.
I also wrote about the US Federal Court of Appeals long-awaited decision on the question of fair use in the Google v Oracle dispute. The Federal Court ruled that Google’s use of Java APIs in building the Android OS was not fair, and has remanded the case to the trial court for damages. The real repurcussions of this decision will be felt in the development community’s use of APIs.
SpicyIP Events: Pankhuri announced that the registration for Session 2 of a free online advanced international certificate course on IP Asset Management for Business Success is currently open. The course is jointly created and managed by WIPO, the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and the Korea Invention Promotion Association (KIPA). The deadline for registration for this session is May 9, 2018.
In a suit for infringement and passing off of plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘COUNTRY INN filed in 2008’, the defendant (the registered proprietor of ‘the trademark COUNTRY INN & SUITES BY CARLSON’) filed a written statement in 2009 pleading invalidity of registration of the plaintiff’s trademark. Later, in 2017, it filed rectification/cancellation proceedings in respect of the plaintiff’s trademark before the IPAB. Subsequently, it filed the present application before High Court seeking permission to proceed with them and stay of further trial in the infringement and passing off suit until their disposal. The court, however, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Patel Field Marshal Agencies case, dismissed the application with costs of Rs. 2 lacs, considering it to be frivolous, ‘mala fide and an ‘abuse of process of law’. The court held that the defendant is deemed to have abandoned its claim for filing rectification/cancellation proceedings in view of the fact that these proceedings were filed after an inordinate delay of 7 years from the date of framing of issues, that the proposed proceedings did not find a mention in the written statement filed in 2008 and that even later, there was no application filed for amending the written statement to make a mention of the proposed proceedings.
- Kings XI Punjab agrees to deposit INR 3.76 lacs with the Delhi High Court in a contempt application filed by ISRA
- U.S. Trade Representative again places India on ‘watch list’
- UAE food major wins trademark suit against Indian firm
- Nature of expenditure for use of trademark depends on facts of case, Delhi HC
- Swedish court holds that Google can be only ordered to undertake limited delisting in right to be forgotten cases
- USTR IP Report Sparks Outcry Among Health Advocates