Trademark

The Nation Can Want To Know, For Now!


In an update to the Bennet Coleman (Times now)- Arnab Goswami Legal battle raging on at Delhi High Court, Arnab can continue using the phrase ‘the nations wants to know’ till the Court passes the final judgment in the case, according to its recent order. ‘The Nation Wants To Know’ Controversy As previously covered by Prof. Shamnad here and analyzed here, Bennet Coleman had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Arnab Goswami, citing trademark infringement and passing off….


Read More »
Copyright Publication

Cultivating The Commons


Private IP rights are often seen to conflict with the larger public interest in accessing knowledge and the “commons”. Justice Prabha Sridevan recently penned a powerful piece on the commons, framing it not just through an IP lens but through a wider perspective involving the environment etc. Here are some excerpts:  ‘Even after man felt that there was need for fences and certificates of ownership, he still recognized that some lands must be kept in common for use by all…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 25- July 1)


This week’s topical highlights were brought to us by Sreyoshi and Shamnad Sir through their posts on the Exide Trademark dispute and on Tribunal Appointments, respectively. Sreyoshi, in her piece, analyses the settlement between Exide Industries (Exide India) and Exide technologies (Exide USA) which concluded a two decade long legal battle instituted by Exide India citing trademark infringement and passing off  by Exide USA. The battle can be traced back to 2012, when the Delhi High Court decided in favor…


Read More »
Patent

Roche v. Cipla- The Sense of An Ending


In what could possibly be the end of the Roche v. Cipla saga, Cipla has withdrawn the SLP it had filed in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court Order of 2015. The Apex Court allowed Cipla to withdraw its Petition owing to a settlement reached between the parties, with Cipla acknowledging the validity of Roche’s patent rights in Erlotinib Hydrochloride. Brief History The Roche v. Cipla saga concerns the patent rights in the compound Erlotinib Hydrochloride (Patent IN…


Read More »
Others Trademark

Why So Gambhir?


In what could be an interesting publicity rights case, ace cricketer Gautam Gambhir has taken a Delhi based restaurateur to Court for unauthorized use of his name in the tagline of his pubs. The twist is…the hotelier is named Gautam Gambhir too! Facts Gautam Gambhir discovered that two pubs in Delhi, ‘Hawalat’ and ‘Ghungroo’, were using the tag line ‘by Gautam Gambhir’, which was causing confusion among his fans.  A teetotaler himself, he was distressed at this ‘false association’ caused…


Read More »
Events

SpicyIP Events: 2nd AIPLA Women in Intellectual Property Networking Event


We are pleased to announce that the Women in IP Committee of American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is organizing the 2nd AIPLA Women in Intellectual Property Networking Event on June 5th, 2017 at the Indian Habitat Centre, New Delhi. For further details, please read their note below: 2nd AIPLA Women in Intellectual Property Networking Event, India To be held on June 5, 2017 At India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. AIPLA (American Intellectual Property Law Association) represents a wide and diverse spectrum of individuals…


Read More »
Copyright

Does Copyright Infringement Warrant A Warrant?


In Deshraj v. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court held that the police does need a warrant to take action against a person accused of copyright infringement, since it is a ‘non cognizable’ offence.  It has, however, only added to one side of a  seemingly dichotomous, age-old debate: Is copyright infringement a non-cognizable offence or a cognizable one? In simple language, does the police require a warrant to proceed against an accused infringer, or can they act  without one?…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 21-27)


The topical highlight for this week was brought to us by Ritvik- who wrote on a recent update in the XTANDI matter: a letter written by the Union for Affordable Cancer Treatment (UACT) to University of California (UCLA), asking it to withdraw its case before the Delhi High Court against the IPO’s rejection of its patent in XTANDI. The letter states that the research has been substantially funded by the U.S Taxpayers’ money, and the same cannot be used to…


Read More »
Copyright

Ab Ki Baar, They Released Sarkar!


The Bombay High Court has, of late, been dishing out cogent judgments in relation to copyright infringement in films. Read the Phillauri judgment here and the Sardar Gabbar Singh judgment here. In keeping with recent tradition, earlier this month the Bombay High Court in Narendra Hirawat vs. Alumbra Entertainment, or the ‘Sarkar 3’ case, sought to examine the difference between a ‘remake’ and a  ‘sequel’, based on the contractual terms agreed by the parties. Facts The parties before the Court…


Read More »
Patent

Lighting Up Injunction Jurisprudence: US v. India


 To say that the Indian jurisprudence around injunctions is a hotchpotch of ad-hoc legal dicta is an understatement. Thus far, we’re not clear on what precisely the standards for the granting an injunction are. The US courts on the other hand, have a bit more clarity on this. With the latest CAFC decision in Nichia, it is now clearer (post eBay) that patent injunctions cannot be had for the asking and are not to be granted as a matter of…


Read More »