This week’s thematic highlight was brought forth by our fellowship applicant, Arth Nagpal. In his submission, he compares ISP liability on parties for copyright infringement in USA and India. He examines the problem of John Doe orders in India and highlights the necessity of reforming the Indian Copyright Act for introducing ISP liability in India.
Sreyoshi wrote a post on a Madras High Court judgment which analysed the issue of whether there had been infringement of copyright in Fermat Education’s 2IIM CAT questions by Unacademy, which had reproduced these questions on their website. The Court examined the “Terms and Conditions” of the Unacademy website and concluded that it could not be considered as an “intermediary” under the IT Act and was, hence, not entitled to the exemption from liability granted to intermediaries under the Act. In her analysis of the judgment, Sreyoshi questions the interpretation of “intermediary” by the Court.
Prof. N. S. Gopalakrishnan continues to provide us insightful posts on the numerous faults in the Indian Plant Varieties Regime. His latest post forms the continuation of his previous post on registration of farmers’ varieties. He mainly focusses on Annexure 1 for endorsement which is attached with application for registration of farmers’ variety and, though its requirements, effectuates discrimination against farmers.
Rishabh wrote about the efforts of Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) to stop the University of California, Los Angeles (ULCA) from pursuing a patent for Xtandi, an anti-cancer drug. UAEM had reportedly sent an e-mail to the President of ULCA regarding this matter.
Pankhuri announced that there is a job opening for two senior associates in the Patents and Trademarks teams of P.S. Davar and Co., a boutique IP law firm based in Delhi.
Goal Educational Services Private Limited v. Goal Institute – Delhi District Court [August 18, 2018]
The Court granted an ex parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s registered mark “GOAL” and its trade name “GOAL PRACTICE CENTRE” by using a deceptively similar mark “GOAL COACHING CENTRE” in respect of education for providing coaching for medical/engineering entrance examinations, computer training and other allied and cognate services. In arriving at this decision, the Court stated that the Defendant’s mark was identical in all respects and served recipients of the same services as that of the Plaintiff. The Court also observed that if the Defendant was allowed to use such a mark, it would cause wrongful loss to the Plaintiff Company and harm to the public. Moreover, the Court awarded punitive and compensatory damages of Rupees 2 lakhs in favour of the Plaintiff.
M/s. Chetandas Rajkumar Batra v. M/s. Gulshan Enterprises – Rajasthan High Court [August 16, 2018]
The dispute concerned the trial court’s grant of injunction in favour of the Respondent in respect of its mark “1482 SURYA BHOG”, wherein the Appellant claimed that the trial court had erred in granting the injunction for the unregistered label mark “1482 SURYA BHOG” and passing off as they were not mentioned in the pleadings. The Court dismissed this stay application stating that the trial court had comprehensively compared the marks of both parties and found substance in the allegations of the Respondent along with the balance of convenience and irreparable injury for grant of injunction.
- India: JCB Loses Patent Due To Non-Compliance Of Section 8
- Lensman in eye of storm over photo
- Live Streaming of court proceedings can be introduced as pilot project: Govt to SC
- Magic rice set for US debut