Prof. Basheer and Pankhuri provided a critical analysis of the National IPR Policy 2016. They note that the policy is not worth celebrating, since it largely endorses dogmatic views of IPR and lacks the creativity necessary for a robust policy framework. They do, however, point out that the policy has done well to recognise the importance of open-access works and rewarding innovation through prizes and awards. They provide excerpts of their recently published paper, which provides the first comprehensive take on the policy.
Prarthana covered a recent decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on a patent application for a pharmaceutical for the cure of giardiasis, a disease that affects cats and dogs. While the application was eventually withdrawn, the First Examination Report found that the drug was merely a new use of a known substance, and did not have the requisite synergistic effect required under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Divij wrote another post on the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court on standard essential patents. He argues that on the issue of ‘essentiality’ of the patent, the court improperly placed reliance on the examination reports submitted by the plaintiff, without requiring the same to be proven. He also notes that the determination of damages was inconsistent with domestic and international jurisprudence.
I wrote on a circular issued by the AICTE, announcing the ‘Intellectual Property Talent Search Examination 2018’. This test has been announced in furtherance of the push towards increasing awareness in IPRs at an early stage amongst students at school and university. Although these efforts are commendable, I draw from Prof. Basheer and Pankhuri’s paper to argue that conducting these talent searches through examinations may not be the best way to spread awareness and recognise talent.
Pankhuri brought to us an announcement of a certificate course on ‘IP Licensing and Competition Law’ organised by the Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition at National Law University, Delhi. The course is to be held from August 22-26 in Delhi. Those interested are required to apply by 10 August 2018. Candidates will not have to pay a registration fee.
Christian Louboutin v. Ashish Bansal & Another – Delhi High Court [July 31, 2018]
The Court granted an ex-parte decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and their affiliates from using the Plaintiff’s mark “RED SOLE”, with respect to footwear, on the ground that the Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the mark and the Defendant adopted a counterfeit trademark and a deceptively similar domain name to sell its goods, which practically amounted to infringement and passing off of the Defendant’s mark. Furthermore, the Court granted the Plaintiff punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, in light of the immense loss to its goodwill and reputation.
M/s. Micro Labs Limited v. M/s. Eris Lifesciences Limited – Madras High Court [July 24, 2018]
The dispute concerned the Respondent’s use of the mark “OLMIN” in respect of its product for anti-hypertension, in infringing and passing off Appellant’s trademark “OLAMINE” concerning its dermatological ointment. The Court dismissed the appeal for the sought injunction, stating that the products of the Parties were different in nature and served different purposes. However, the Court granted a stay on the proceedings till March, 2019 in light of the pending rectification application before the Intellectual Property Appellant Board.