2024

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 26- March 3)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments. Last week we published 6 posts including a post on the PAC Chairperson’s demand for a probe by CVC into the allegations of corruption against CGPDTM, and also introduced the inaugural SpicyIP Doctoral Fellow. This and a lot more in this SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Please let us know in the comments below. Highlights of the Week PAC Chairperson Demands Probe by Chief Vigilance Commission Into […]

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 26- March 3) Read More »

PAC Chairperson Demands Probe by Chief Vigilance Commission Into Corruption Allegations Against CGPDTM!

/ By / Geographical Indication, Patent, Trademark

“Out of the frying pan, into the fire” seems to sum up the current predicament of the Office of the Controller General of Patent, Designs and Trade Mark (CGPDTM). Only a few weeks after somehow organizing the Patent and Design Examiners’ Exams, and fixing the long-standing issue with the trademark registry website, the office has ended up in another turmoil. As reported by the Print, the Press Trust of India, and tweeted by the ANI, Member of Parliament and Chairperson

PAC Chairperson Demands Probe by Chief Vigilance Commission Into Corruption Allegations Against CGPDTM! Read More »

Navigating Denied Filings: Trademark Justice at the Crossroads of the Commercial Courts Act

/ By / Trademark

[This post is authored by SpicyIP intern Kevin Preji. Kevin is a second-year law student at NLSIU Bangalore. His passion lies in understanding the intersection of economics and public health with intellectual property rights. His previous posts can be accessed here.] While the Trademark Act provides for proprietors to protect their trademarks using evidence of prior use, goodwill etc which requires documentation dating back to the early days of the business, the Commercial Courts Act 2015 provides for strict deadlines

Navigating Denied Filings: Trademark Justice at the Crossroads of the Commercial Courts Act Read More »

Journey Through “Januarys” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present)

/ By / Others

Welcome back to the “Sifting Through SpicyIP Pages” series! This time, I have journeyed through the pages “Januarys” on SpicyIP since 2005 and got you some stories that, I think, have kept us occupied over the years. It’s the 8th post of this monthly series. We have already traversed through Junes, Julys, Augusts, Septembers, Octobers, Novembers, Decembers, and shared some stories like Rahul Cherian’s Legacy, 2010’s International Efforts on Pandemics, Corruption in IP Offices, Law Making via Leaked Documents, etc.

Journey Through “Januarys” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present) Read More »

Announcing the Inaugural SpicyIP Doctoral Fellow!

/ By / Others

Our readers would have noticed that since November 2023, we have been publishing hard hitting, incisive posts by our fantastic two new SpicyIP Student Fellows Yogesh Byadwal and Tejaswini Kaushal. Yogesh is a second year student from the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru and Tejaswini is a third year student from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. Yogesh and Tejaswini were among our most diligent interns and subsequently joined the team as a part of the

Announcing the Inaugural SpicyIP Doctoral Fellow! Read More »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Farthrogen.com.de%2F&psig=AOvVaw1nccXPF9yeI4dRrEIpwYkz&ust=1709112679037000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBMQjRxqFwoTCICW8Iaby4QDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Arthrogen v. Controller Gen of Patents: The DHC’s Dilemma of Identifying the Method of Treatment under Section 3(i) of the Patent Act

/ By / Innovation, Patent

On 5th Feb, a  Single Bench (SB) of the Delhi High Court (DHC) overturned a previous order by the Controller General of Patents that had classified the “method of producing ‘protein enriched blood serum’” as a method of treatment under Section 3(i) in The Patents Act, 1970. This decision was made in the case of Arthrogen Gmbh vs Controller General Of Patents. The SB determined that the controller had erroneously equated the method of producing a novel substance with a

Arthrogen v. Controller Gen of Patents: The DHC’s Dilemma of Identifying the Method of Treatment under Section 3(i) of the Patent Act Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 19- February 25)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments. Last week we published 3 posts on the MHC’s interpretation of Section 3(d) in the Novozymes case, DHC’s referral of 3 questions concerning the jurisdiction of High Courts in trademark rectification matters, and DHC’s decision on infringement of product by process claims. Anything we are missing out on? Let us know by dropping a comment below. Highlights of the Week ‘Non’-Pharmaceutical Substance and Efficacy under Sec 3(d) Can Section 3(d) be

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 19- February 25) Read More »

SpicyIP Tibdit: Delhi High Court directs Oppo to make interim deposit in InterDigital v. Oppo proceedings

/ By / Patent

By judgment dated 21 February 2024, the Delhi High Court ordered Oppo to deposit an undisclosed sum as pro tem deposit (interim deposit) with the Registry . The Court imposed a cost of  INR 5,00, 000 /- upon Oppo for delaying the proceedings. The Court directed that the trial should conclude in 2024 itself. If the trial is not concluded within this time period, Oppo should deposit an additional sum. I shall discuss this judgment in detail in the later

SpicyIP Tibdit: Delhi High Court directs Oppo to make interim deposit in InterDigital v. Oppo proceedings Read More »

Product-by-Process Claim: DHC to the Rescue

/ By / Innovation, Patent

The Delhi High Court (DHC) judgement in Vifor (International) Ltd. v. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.,explaining and allowing product-by-process claims as fundamentally concerned with the product in question, is of seminal importance for Indian Patent jurisprudence. In my opinion, the judgement, although verbose, brings much needed clarity on Patent-by-Process in India by locating it within the Act, laying out its scope and applicability and interaction with Process Patent u/s 48(b).  This judgement, decided by a Division Bench (DB) in an appeal against a

Product-by-Process Claim: DHC to the Rescue Read More »

Legislative Oversight? Addressing the High Court Jurisdiction Vacuum Post-IPAB vis-a-vis Cancellation Petitions under the Trademark Act

/ By / Trademark

Recently, the Delhi High Court referred 3 questions regarding the jurisdiction of a High Court to hear trademark rectification applications, to a larger bench. Discussing this controversy along with his thoughts on the probable solution, we are pleased to bring to you this post by SpicyIP intern Kevin Preji. Kevin is a second-year law student at NLSIU Bangalore. His passion lies in understanding the intersection of economics and public health with intellectual property rights. His previous posts can be accessed

Legislative Oversight? Addressing the High Court Jurisdiction Vacuum Post-IPAB vis-a-vis Cancellation Petitions under the Trademark Act Read More »

Scroll to Top