SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 24-30)

Thematic Highlight

In a guest post, Dr Sunanda Bharti shared her views on sarees as a subject matter of intellectual property rights. Specifically, she argues that the methods of draping sarees can be protected as Traditional Cultural Expression. She notes that the use of these methods would constitute misappropriation if used commercially or in a manner that offends the culture. Further, she posits that these rights may be implemented through the Domaine Public Payant method, where the government collects revenue for the use of traditional cultural expression.

Topical Highlight

Pankhuri shared the first post of a series of posts on The Sustainable Seed Innovations Project, a UK-India project on sustainable agriculture, led by the University of Leeds, Art of Living Foundation and Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai. In this post, the team invites the readers to share their views and feedback in relation to a position paper that is being prepared for the Government of India. In this post, they offer a definition for ‘sustainable seed innovations’ and ways in which the goal can be achieved.

SpicyIP Events

Pankhuri shared details of the Sports Law & Policy Symposium 2019, to be held from August 2-3 in Bangalore.

Other Posts

Pankhuri shared a post with the views and experiences of present and past SpicyIP Student Fellows on the fellowship.

Other Developments



Swarovski Aktiengesellshaft v. Durgesh Kumar Patwa – Delhi District Court [June 1, 2019]

The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from infringing and passing off the Plaintiff’s registered mark “SWAROVSKI” and its logo by using a deceptively similar mark “SWARAWSKI” in respect of jewellery and allied products. In arriving at this decision, the Court noted that the Plaintiff was the registered owner of the mark, and the same had acquired distinct features due to its consistent use. The Court also awarded damages of Rupees 25,000 to the Plaintiff in light of the items recovered by the Leading Commissioner from Defendant No. 1 in a raid.

State v. Anil – Delhi District Court [June 3, 2019]

The accused in this case was found in possession of 285 pirated MP3 files and 619 pirated DVDs during a raid on his shop. The Court noted that the prosecution had to show that the accused was found in possession of articles in which copyright subsisted in favour of the complainant. However, it was subsequently noted by the Court that the prosecution had failed to prove the recovery and identity of the articles seized as well as to show the relation of the accused with the shop from which articles were recovered.  The Court observed that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It was noted in the findings of the Court that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that valid copyright subsisted in the articles of which the pirated versions were presented, or that the accused had knowledge of the existence of copyright in such articles. In light of these lapses, the Court noted that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted.

State v. Robin Singh – Delhi District Court [June 3, 2019]

The case against the accused was that he was found loading copyrighted songs of movies on mobile phones without any authority or license to do so. The Court recorded that it was a principle of criminal law that prosecution was supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, the Court noted that the prosecution’s witnesses had given contradictory and inconsistent statements thereby failing to inspire the confidence of the Court. Having noted this, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.