Here is a brief recap of IP developments from last week. Do read our summaries of the post on the history of IP teaching in India, some pressing questions arising out of a recent patent prosecution proceeding, and Bombay High Court’s interpretation of Section 60, Copyright Act.
Highlights of the Week
Why do we cite who we cite? Why are some IP scholars more visible than others? In this extremely insightful post delving into how IP as a subject grew in India, Lokesh explores the link between scholarship generation, and the emergence of IP as an academic discipline, sharing his research insights from India’s IP history since the 1970s WIPO meetings.
Glaring Procedural Questions Arising Out of a Recent Patent Prosecution Proceeding
Are some applicants more equal than others? In an astonishing turn of events, recently the IPO abruptly transferred an application from one officer to another, ignoring a subsisting notice of opposition, and eventually granted a patent despite the applicant failing to meet the mandated deadlines. Read this guest post by Suriya Balakanthan to know more.
Section 60 of the Copyright Act: Finally, Some Answers(?)
Copyright trolls, and entities that make their living off of sending infringement notices (whether with any basis or not) are not uncommon anymore. India is actually one of the few jurisdictions where the legislators had the foresight to include some protection (Section 60) against just this! Given how little discourse there has been around this provision, it is not surprising though, that there is still much room for conceptual and interpretative clarity. Anirud Raghav S U Raghav brings us a very interesting post on this issue, as discussed by the Bombay High Court in a recent judgement.
Other Posts
Nuziveedu v. Plant Varieties Authority: Reaping the Fruits of Pioneer’s Seeds
Test before you profess? Recently the DHC held that conducting the DUS testing is essential before a plant variety application can be advertised. Vedika writes on this order.
The Taste of Triumph: Lays Sweeps Potato Variety IP Dispute
Observing that the procedural irregularities were not grave enough to merit revocation, a division bench of the DHC restored Pepsico’s potato plant variety renewal application. Read Tejaswini’s post to know more about the order.
Case Summaries
Amir Biri Factory & Ors vs Mohd. Aslam on 16 January, 2024 (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court vacated an earlier interim injunction order finding that the plaintiff guilty of suppressing material facts. The court held that the plaintiff suppressed that the registration to its “Mazdoor Bidi” mark was restricted to non descriptive parts of the mark and that it was permitted to sale its products in West Bengal.
Delhi High Court passed an interim injunction against the defendant holding their “Peace Maker” label to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “Officer’s Choice” label. The court held that it has to put itself in a realistic position to determine the confusion and has to assess factors such as how the bottles are stacked, the types of consumers consuming the products, place where the products are served.
The Bombay High Court passed an ex-parte interim injunction against John Does operating fake websites claiming to provide services related to issuing PAN cards. The court held that these websites were passing off their services as that of the plaintiffs by using its mark and thus passed the present order.
Saga Music Pvt. Ltd. v. Roger David and Ors. on 16 January 2024 (Delhi High Court)
In an ex-parte interim injunction order, the Delhi High Court restrained Pakistani- American singer Bohemia from entering into an agreement with third parties and making any sound recordings, without the prior approval of the plaintiff. As per the terms of the agreement between the plaintiff and Bohemia, it was agreed that the singer would engage with the plaintiff exclusively for 45 months and would not record or perform for any other music producers.
Other IP Developments
- Proprietor of “Killer Jeans” sues makers of “Killer Soup” for trademark infringement.
- A court in Ahmedabad directs Gurajati Singer Kinjal Dave to pay 1 Lakh as damages to Singer Kartik Patel, for violating earlier injunction against singing ‘Char Char Bangdi Vadi Gadi’ song.
- Kachchhi Kharek from Gujarat gets a GI registration.
- Delhi High Court restrains a Gujarat based party from using “Aaj Tak” mark.
- Daryaganj or Moti Mahal, whom does butter chicken and daal makhni belong to? Delhi High Court to determine.
International IP Development
- US PTO invalidates Seagen patent in a Daiichi Sankyo’s post grant review proceeding.
- AI company Anthropic asks Tennessee Federal Court to reject lawsuit by three music publishers.
- Redesigned Apple watches not subject to import ban, says US customs.
- U.S. appeals court upholds tribunal decisions in Apple-Masimo patent dispute.
