Mathews P. George

Mathews P. George

Mathews is a graduate of National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. His interest in intellectual property was kindled when he bagged the second position in his second year of Law School (in the prestigious Nani Palkhiwala Essay Competition on Intellectual Property). His stint as a student of Prof. Shamnad Basheer further accentuated his interest in intellectual property. Winner of almost a dozen essay competitions in his Law School days, he was involved in various research and policy initiatives relating to intellectual property. Mathews is, currently, based out of Munich, Germany. He had earlier done his LLM in 'IP and Competition Law' from Munich Intellectual Property Law Centre (jointly run by Max Plank Institute for Innovation and Competition, University of Augsburg, Technical University of Munich and George Washington University, Washington).

Drug Regulation Others

DCGI draws ire of Delhi High Court for violating the RTI Act

by
Leave a Comment

The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court headed by Justice Pratibha Singh, in its recent order in Prashant Reddy v DCGI, came down heavily on the drug regulator for egregious violation of the Right to Information Act. The case arose in relation to the report of Dr. T.M. Mohapatra Committee, a committee which was constituted by the Drugs Controller General of India pursuant to the scathing criticisms in the 59th Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the existing mechanism for…


Read More »
COVID-19 Trademark

Tenability of Passing Off Action against ‘Covishield’ Vaccine of Serum Institute of India

by
2 Comments

As you are aware of, Covishield, the vaccine candidate of Serum Institute of India was approved by Drug Controller General of India for restricted emergency use today. Pertinently, a passing off suit was filed against Serum Institute of India by a Nanded-based pharmaceutical company Cutis Biotech last month, which claimed to be the lawful and the prior user of the trade name ‘Covishield’. The trademark applications, which were filed by the Cutis Biotech and the Serum Institute of India, are…


Read More »
Patent

Update: Wuhan Court Rejects Application to Reconsider Anti-Suit Injunction Granted in Favour of Xiaomi

by
Leave a Comment

We had earlier extensively covered the development involving anti-suit injunction granted by the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court and the anti-anti-suit injunction granted by the Delhi High Court with regard to the SEP dispute between InterDigital and Xiaomi (see here, here and here). As we could gather from here, InterDigital had filed an application before the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court to reconsider the anti-suit injunction granted in favour of Xiaomi. The application was, however, rejected by the Wuhan Court.


Read More »
Patent

The Issue of Sovereignty and Grant of Patents in Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction Issued by Delhi High Court

by
Leave a Comment

SpicyIP recently reported on the Delhi High Court judgment in a SEP dispute where an anti-anti-suit injunction was issued against the anti-suit injunction issued by the Wuhan Court (Interdigital v Xiaomi). There are already two posts on this issue (here and here). My post intends to focus only on one issue, which I consider to be highly relevant. According to me, the issue on the grant of patent by the sovereign that I am discussing, did not get the deserved…


Read More »
Others Patent

Sisvel v Haier: SEP Case Law from Germany

by
Leave a Comment

The SEP negotiation framework is a multi-faceted one since it involves Patent Law, Competition Law and Contract Law considerations. India does not have a SEP negotiation framework like the one laid down by the CJEU in Huawei v ZTE. [The Delhi High Court, in Ericsson v CCI, has made a reference to the CJEU judgment in Huawei v ZTE]. It is not that the CJEU judgment has removed all the ambiguities in the SEP negotiation framework. On the other hand,…


Read More »
Copyright Others

Functionality in Copyright Law : In the light of a recent EU Case Law

by
Leave a Comment

In this post, I would like to discuss a recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Brompton Bicycle (C-833/18). This judgment is relevant in the context of Section 52(1)(w) of India’s Copyright Act which provides as follows: “The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:- (w) the making of a three-dimensional object from a two-dimensional artistic work, such as a technical drawing, for the purposes of industrial application of any purely…


Read More »
Copyright

Discussion on Fundamentals of ‘Authorship’: Copyright System v. Author’s Rights System

by
1 Comment

The digital world is challenging the fundamental norms of IP laws. This calls for a new perspective on IP as a whole and copyright law in particular. This post offers some thoughts in the context of an article titled ‘Musician uses algorithm to generate every possible melody to prevent copyright lawsuits’ and another article which deals with the usage of AI for emulating the styles of great painters such as Van Gogh, Turner and Vermeer. What are the fundamental principles…


Read More »
Trademark

The Delhi High Court and an Anti-Suit Injunction – Part II

by
2 Comments

[Please read Part I of this two-part post for the summary of the judgment discussed herein] Introduction I am unable to agree with the judgment of Delhi High Court on various counts. At the outset, this is an ex-parte proceeding. The evidentiary threshold, as held by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani (AIR 2003 SC 2508), is as follows: “33. ………In the absence of denial of plaint averments the burden of proof on the plaintiff is…


Read More »
Trademark

The Delhi High Court and an Anti-Suit Injunction – Part I

by
Leave a Comment

The Delhi High Court recently granted an anti-suit injunction in HT Media Ltd v. Brainlink International in an ex-parte interim injunction proceedings. Part I of this two part post shall summarise the judgment. Part II shall critically analyse the judgment. Brief Facts The plaintiff owns the trademarks “Hindustan” and “Hindustan times” under Class 16 and Class 38. The defendant owns the domain name www.hindustan.com. The negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendant for handing over the domain name were not…


Read More »
Trademark

Global Trademark Report Card, 2019 (Special 301 Submission) – II

by
Leave a Comment

This is the second and last post covering submissions with respect to trademark (the one first can be viewed here). While making comments, I have relied on inputs provided by various practising lawyers based out of Delhi and other parts of India. Court Proceedings: The Report notes that, ‘it may require at least two-to-three years for court proceedings to be decided, sometimes longer (up to seven years), particularly in courts other than the Delhi High Court. The Commercial Courts Act,…


Read More »
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 17