Others

SpicyIp Weekly Review (May 6-12)


Divij broke the news about a recent order delivered by the Bombay HC in the Tips Industries v. Wynk Music matter, wherein the Court decided upon the applicability of the statutory licensing scheme under Section 31D of the Copyright Act to online streaming services. The Court, in its order, held that internet broadcasting is not covered under Section 31D. In his post, Divij also delves into the question of whether there is a need to introduce internet streaming services into Indian copyright law.

I had posted about a Delhi High Court order which dealt with the applicability of the Seeds Act to GIs. The Court delved into this issue when certain office memorandums issued by the Ministry of Agriculture (allegedly, on the basis of the Central Seed Committee’s recommendations) set forth that only Basmati varieties which were  grown in Indo-Gangetic area would come under the “Basmati” GI. The Court examined the provisions of the Seeds Act and concluded that GIs do not come within the ambit of the Act.

We had a guest post on the infringement of the ‘Muga’ silk GI, belonging to Assam. In recent textile exhibitions held around Delhi NCR, a silk called ‘Moonga’ was being sold on a large scale by being advertised as Muga silk. The author notes that GI registration is not an end in itself and there was a need for strategy post registration. She also concludes that there is a need to provide additional protection to products other than wines and spirits in the additional protection list notified under Section 22(2) of the GI Act.

 

Other Developments

Indian

Judgments

Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. Flipkartwinnerdraw.com and Others – Delhi High Court [May 3, 2019]

The Court granted an ex parte permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s registered mark “FLIPKART” by using the mark as a part of its domain names. In arriving at this decision, the Court observed that the Defendant had no real prospect to defend the claim as the mark was registered in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant had failed to appear or file a written statement.

News

International

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.