Patent

IPAB’s Power of Review


This is a slightly dated order of the IPAB (August 2009), where it was held that IPAB does not have the power of substantive review of its decisions. The order was delivered in an appeal involving Nestle, the appeal arising out of the rejection under Section 15 of Nestle’s application for a patent. The hearing on the appeal was adjourned twice at the request of the authorized counsel for the appellant; a third date was also sought and granted to…


Read More »
Patent

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi HC Refuses Ex-parte Order against Ranbaxy


Earlier this week, it was reported in the Economic Times that the Delhi High Court has refused US pharma major Bristol-Myers Squibb’s application for an ex-parte injunction order against Ranbaxy for launching a generic version of Squibb’s hepatitis B drug, Baraclude. However, the application for interim injunction is yet to be heard. The Court has given Ranbaxy a period of 2 weeks to file its reply after which arguments on the interim application would be taken up. The drug Entecavir…


Read More »
Patent

Guest Post: Challenging Pre-Grant Orders Through Writ Petitions: Delhi HC Clarifies


In 2 earlier posts, I had discussed in detail the decision of the Delhi High Court ruling that rejection of patent applications in pre-grant oppositions are appealable before the IPAB. A guest post too was written by Adithya Reddy on pre-grant appeals; in this guest post, Adithya continues the discussion with his pithy analysis of the Delhi High Court’s decision. Although belated no thanks to inadvertent delay on my part, (for which I owe my apologies to Adithya) the guest…


Read More »
Comparative Advertising

Rin v. Tide: Calcutta HC Stays the Rin Ad


According to news reports, the Calcutta High Court has stayed HUL’s Rin Ad and has said that the ad is a clear case of disparagement. An injunction has been granted on the grounds that the voice-over in the ad spoke of Tide whereas the ad showed Tide Naturals and that there were inherent defects in the affidavits submitted by HUL to support its claim of superior whiteness. HUL has been asked to withdraw the ad to which the company pleaded…


Read More »
Comparative Advertising

Rin v. Tide: P&G Goes to Court


According to latest news reports, P&G which owns “Tide” has knocked the doors of the Calcutta High Court in relation to HUL’s controversial Rin advertisement. According this news report, a few weeks back, Tide Natural’s advertisement which claimed a special fragrance was challenged by HUL before the Madras High Court on grounds that the claim was false. The Court too seemed to hold the same view since P&G couldn’t prove its claim. We’ll discuss this judgment in a later post….


Read More »
Comparative Advertising

Rin v. Tide III: ASCI Steps into the Picture


If news reports are to be believed, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has received complaints against HUL from two consumers against the controversial Rin advertisement. The general secretary of ASCI, Allan Collaco has said that a notice to HUL will be issued on Wednesday and HUL will be given a 15-day period to respond. Apparently, there are a few complaints pending against HUL in connection with other ads too. Last month, P&G reportedly lodged a complaint against HUL…


Read More »
Comparative Advertising

Rin v. Tide II: Has Tide (P&G) Gone to Court?


In the last two posts, I had discussed the facts of the Rin-Tide controversy and the position of the law on comparative advertising. It appears that mainstream media has finally woken up to the matter. A column in the Economic Times today reports on the controversy and adds that a source from HUL has said that Procter and Gamble, the owner of Tide has gone to Court on the advertisement. The source further informed ET that employees at HUL have…


Read More »
Comparative Advertising

Rin v. Tide I: What is the Law?


SpicyIP Wishes all its Readers a Safe n Happy Holi! May Rin and Tide become friends this Holi! (Wouldn’t it be anti-competitive then?) (The conclusions originally arrived at in this post have been slightly altered after a bit of deliberation) In my last post, I had discussed in brief the recent advertisement for Hindustan Unilever’s detergent brand “Rin”, in which a rival brand “Tide” figures prominently. Quite a few comments to that post referred to the Horlicks v. Complan judgment…


Read More »
Comparative Advertising

Rin v. Tide: Taking Indian Advertisement to a Different Level… (below the belt?)


  “Bold and brash” is in and it’s the new chic(k?). Gone are the days of harmless understated advertisements (Oh I am not complaining at all, maybe I will after a few decades, but not now). If Deepika Chikhalia was the epitome of the “Bharateeya Naari” (thanks to Ramanand Sagar’s “Ramayan”) for “Nirma Super” for what seems like ages ages ago, the new set of female characters in advertisements for detergent powders appear to be scheming conniving “saas-bahu” types straight…


Read More »