Author name: Inika Charles

Inika is a fifth year student at National Law University, Jodhpur, and is on the founding Board of Editors of the Journal of Intellectual Property Studies. She has a strong interest in Intellectual Property, and is fascinated with the intersection of IP with Technology and Media law. You can contact her at [email protected], or on Twitter: @inikacharles

Delhi HC Order Clarifies Aspects of Section 17 of the Copyright Act

/ By / Copyright

Last Friday, the Delhi High Court passed an order in the case of Neetu Singh v. Rajiv Saumitra (order available here). This is a very interesting case, not only because of the unique fact situation, but due to the questions of copyright law that it throws up. I see this case as important as it provides clarity on how to tackle the question of ‘employment’ under Section 17 of the Copyright Act. Factual Background The Plaintiff filed this suit seeking […]

Delhi HC Order Clarifies Aspects of Section 17 of the Copyright Act Read More »

Taj Mahal Palace Hotel First Building to Receive Trademark in India

/ By / Copyright, Overlaps in IP, Trademark

On 19th June, Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) obtained a trademark for the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, giving it the unique advantage of being the first building to receive a trademark in India.  While news reports refer to this as an “image mark”, it is the first time (please correct me if I’m wrong) that this term has been used in India. Rajendra Misra, Senior Vice President-General Counsel of IHCL explained the rationale behind this move – “One look at

Taj Mahal Palace Hotel First Building to Receive Trademark in India Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 14 – 20)

/ By / Others

Prashant brought us our topical highlight of the week – a post on the announcement by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of their deal with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) to establish Technology and Innovation Support Centres (TISC) in India. TISCs are meant  to provide innovators in developing countries with quality technology, information and related services to help them create, protect and manage their intellectual property. Prashant questions this deal – as the DIPP could have

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 14 – 20) Read More »

Calcutta HC Allows Spartan Online to Use ‘thespartanpoker’ in Domain Name Spat

/ By / Trademark

The Calcutta High Court, on the 12th of May, allowed Spartan Online to use the domain name ‘www.thespartanpoker.com’ in Rajat Agarwal v. Spartan Online (read the order here). Glaws had previously covered this dispute in March – read here. This is an interesting order, both for the observations on the law governing domain names, and for the parties involved. Read our previous posts on domain names here. Factual Background The Plaintiffs and the Respondents had entered into a joint venture

Calcutta HC Allows Spartan Online to Use ‘thespartanpoker’ in Domain Name Spat Read More »

Sunil Mittal v. Darzi on Call: Of Translations and Descriptive Trademarks

/ By / Trademark

On the 19th of April, 2017, the Delhi High Court passed an order in Sunil Mittal v. Darzi on Call, the order for which is available here. This case is very interesting for two reasons: First: The Court clarifies the law on descriptive trademarks – dealing with the fascinating case of the trademark status of a translation of a descriptive term. Second, the Court also expounds on the law on trademark squatting. Factual Background The Plaintiff’s, Mr. Sunil Mittal and

Sunil Mittal v. Darzi on Call: Of Translations and Descriptive Trademarks Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 16-22)

/ By / Others

Our topical highlight is Prateek’s post on a recent Delhi High Court order that restricts the unauthorised broadcasting / transmission of the Indian Premier League 2017. Sony had approached the Court, fearing that multi system operators / local cable operators such as the Defendants would broadcast IPL without a license, which the Court accepted and consequentially passed an ex parte ad interim injunction for any unauthorised broadcast. The Court additionally appointed Mr. Jamal Akhtar and Ms. Hamsini Shankar as Local

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 16-22) Read More »

Real Milk, Real Ice Cream? Amul’s Advertisement Alleged to be Disparaging in Bombay HC

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Trademark

Amul, known for their quirky and contemporary advertising, seem to have found themselves in trouble over this recent advertisement (picture on the left) that compares them to other ‘frozen dessert’ companies. The advertisement claims that while they use ‘real milk’ to make ‘real ice cream’, other ‘frozen dessert’ companies use Vanaspati oil. As reported by Livemint, Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), and Vadilal have taken Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (GCMMF) to  Court, claiming that this Amul advertisement by GCMMF

Real Milk, Real Ice Cream? Amul’s Advertisement Alleged to be Disparaging in Bombay HC Read More »

IPRS Undergoes Management Change – Javed Akhtar and Achille Forler Brought on Board

/ By / Copyright

In a huge development, the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) has appointed poet, scriptwriter and lyricist Javed Akhtar as their chairman; and copyright administrator Achille Forler as a Permanent Advisor to the Board. This is largely being seen as a positive development, as IPRS has been in the spotlight not only for their validity as a copyright society, but also for allegations of mismanagement and the lack of transparency. As Prashant notes, allegations against the IPRS management date back to

IPRS Undergoes Management Change – Javed Akhtar and Achille Forler Brought on Board Read More »

Delhi HC Seeks Explanation for Denial of Xtandi Patent

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court passed a pertinent order on 2nd March, 2017 in the case of The Regents of the University of California v. Union of India (read the order here). While the order does not go into details, and merely directs the counter-affidavit to be filed within four weeks, media reports indicate that the Court has asked the Centre to explain on what basis the Indian Patent Office rejected the University’s patent application for Xtandi, their prostate cancer drug.

Delhi HC Seeks Explanation for Denial of Xtandi Patent Read More »

Bombay HC Full Bench Rules on the Interplay Between Sections 29(4) and 29(5) of the TM Act – Part I

/ By / Trademark

A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Justices A.S. Oka, A.A. Sayed and A.S. Gadkari pronounced their decision in the matter of Cipla Limited v. M/s Cipla Indsutries Pvt. Ltd. on March 1, 2017 (read the order here). This decision is of extreme importance as the Honourable Chief Justice directed that the matter be placed before a Full Bench, following Justice Patel’s recommendation that the 2010 Division Bench (‘DB’) Decision in Raymond Limited v. Raymond Pharmaceuticals (‘Raymond’)

Bombay HC Full Bench Rules on the Interplay Between Sections 29(4) and 29(5) of the TM Act – Part I Read More »

Scroll to Top