Author name: Aparajita Lath

Aparajita is an Assistant Professor at the National Law School of India, Bangalore. She graduated from the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata and Harvard Law School (LL.M). She has worked at AZB & Partners and Trilegal. She was also a Student Fellow at the Petrie-Flom Centre at Harvard Law School.

Section 3 (K)haos: IPAB on Patenting Mathematical Methods

/ By / Patent

Image from here The IPAB recently upheld the Controller’s decision in a mathematical method application (here). In this case the petitioners claimed that they had invented “A Chaos Theoretical Exponent Value Calculation System” which was denied patent protection on the ground that since it was inherently a mathematical method it was excluded from protection under Section 3(k). The invention involved a system which used a mathematical formula that could calculate a chaos theoretical exponent value at high speed and on […]

Section 3 (K)haos: IPAB on Patenting Mathematical Methods Read More »

IPAB on Descriptive Trademarks

/ By / Trademark

Image from here The present case is Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v KRBL Ltd and Anr. The applicants sought to remove the respondent’s registered trade mark ‘BEMISAL’ (868081/class 30). The said mark has been registered in respect of rice as a “proposed to be used” trade mark. A prayer for stay under S. 95 from giving effect to the mark was also asked for. The IPAB denied removal and held in favour of the respondent’s descriptive mark.  The applicant contended: •

IPAB on Descriptive Trademarks Read More »

Part II: IPAB’s Power to Grant Interim Orders

/ By / Others

INTERIM ORDERS Provisions:  Section 95 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 deals with conditions as to making of interim orders, and it reads as follows:“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or any other manner) shall be made on, or in any proceedings relating to, an appeal unless: […]”  Section 92 (2), TM Act, 1999 : ” (2) The Appellate Board shall have, for the purpose of discharging its functions

Part II: IPAB’s Power to Grant Interim Orders Read More »

Part I: IPAB’s Power of Review

/ By / Others

The IPAB recently decided two important issues – whether it has the power to grant interim reliefs at the application stage and whether it has the power to review its own orders. The Board held that it has both the power to grant interim reliefs as well as the power to review. Both these matters were heard and passed as two separate orders here and here. The members of the Bar acted as intervenors and amici curiae. And as the IPAB put it, they were really ‘friends of the court’. The IPAB also stated that in order to bring uniformity and

Part I: IPAB’s Power of Review Read More »

The Marrakesh Miracle: Salient Features of the International Treaty for the Visually Impaired/Print Disabled Persons

/ By / Copyright

Image from here Technology has almost always been light years ahead of the law. We have had technology that could make books available in all sorts of formats for the print disabled/visually impaired, in order to enable them to read, learn and participate in society. However, all these years, the law has inhibited the effective implementation of such technology thereby excluding 285 million visually impaired people (majority of which live in developing countries and of which 47 million live in India)

The Marrakesh Miracle: Salient Features of the International Treaty for the Visually Impaired/Print Disabled Persons Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Update on Om Shanti Om Copyright Dispute

/ By / Copyright

We would like to thank our readers who brought to our notice certain updates with regard to the Om Shanti Om copyright case (here). As informed, the case has been restored as of June 18, 2013. The High Court order restoring the same is available here. Reportedly, the cause for delay in filing evidence and documents was due to certain personal difficulties Monga’s lawyer was facing. The case has been placed for ‘directions’ on July 17, 2013.

SpicyIP Tidbit: Update on Om Shanti Om Copyright Dispute Read More »

Om Shanti Om: Copyright Dispute

/ By / Copyright

 Image from here A suit for copyright infringement, filed by scriptwriter Ajay Monga, in relation to the blockbuster movie ‘Om Shanti Om’ was recently dismissed. For all orders in relation to Ajay Monga v Red Chilli Entertainment Ltd. see here. The plaintiff (Ajay Monga) alleged infringement of his copyright over the script ‘The Silent Movie’. He argued that upon completion of his script he had distributed it to various producers, including the defendants. Subsequently, the defendants released the film

Om Shanti Om: Copyright Dispute Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 4th Week)

/ By / Uncategorized

Image from here This week SpicyIP brought to its readers very interesting and informative guest posts on recent cases in the US, interesting announcements, insightful and eye opening posts on surveillance by the Central Monitoring System, URL blockings and other legal developments.  Anubha brought to our readers a very interesting piece of news akin to USA’s PRISM project happening in India. The Indian government is in the process of setting up a Central Monitoring System which will provide security agencies

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 4th Week) Read More »

Copyright Hiccup: Madras High Court allows release of Thillu Mullu 2

/ By / Copyright

Image from here First Bollywood, now Kollywood scriptwriters have started making use of the copyright act to restrain release of remakes based on claims of authorship of original scripts. Whether these claims turn out to be true is still to be seen but most claims have been unsuccessful at the interim injunction stage thereby failing to prevent release of the films (e.g. Bombay Talkies, Nautanki Saala, Chashme Budoor).  In Kollywood, Thillu Mullu-2, starring Shiva, Prakash Raj, Santhanam and Isha Talwar,

Copyright Hiccup: Madras High Court allows release of Thillu Mullu 2 Read More »

Decriminalizing Defamation – Are Sections 499/500 of the IPC constitutional?

/ By / Uncategorized

Sending a person to JAIL or even tagging him as an ‘ACCUSED’ for comments which may or may not be defamatory, in this day and age, appears to be ridiculous!  We are all aware that freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and is subject to ‘reasonable’ restrictions. Defamatory speech is one such restriction prescribed under the constitution. Therefore, in order to curb speech that is defamatory, the restriction imposed should be ‘reasonable’. In the case of Chintaman Rao

Decriminalizing Defamation – Are Sections 499/500 of the IPC constitutional? Read More »

Scroll to Top