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 very second year in the prestigious Nani Palkhiwala Essay Competition on 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. His stint as a student of Prof. Shamnad Basheer further accentuated his interest in intellectual property.

Trademark

Case Note: Del HC on Verizon Trademark Services LLC & Ors v. Mr. Parth Solanki & Anr


At the outset, this judgment dated 09 November 2017 doesn’t have much to offer in terms of jurisprudential inputs. You may then be wondering why I am discussing this case. On quite a few occasions, especially in the arena of IPR, ex parte cases arise. The Delhi High Court, in this case, discusses the judicial approach towards such cases. The legal position is, of course, no longer res integra. Even then, revising one’s knowledge on the same is not a…


Read More »
Trademark

Case Note: Kar HC on M/S Adiga Sweets vs M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt


[Image from here.] This is a well-written judgment which is on expected lines. The judgment is a value addition to the extant jurisprudence on trademarks / passing off since it deals with the psychological impact with respect to ‘deceptive similarity’ and ‘confusion’. Facts: The appellant, M/s. Adiga Sweets challenged the legality of the judgment dated 18.09.2013, passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH No.10), Bengaluru City. The learned judge had decreed the suit for permanent injunction in favour…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Thoughts on Regulatory Tussles Involving CCI – III


[*Long post] Earlier posts – Thoughts on Regulatory Tussles Involving CCI – I & Thoughts on Regulatory Tussles Involving CCI – II [Continuing…..] Delhi HC judgment on Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Competition Commission of India and Anr Issues Is there an irreconcilable conflict between the Competition Act and Patents Act? and Is it possible to construe both the Acts harmoniously? Judgment  An inconsistency or repugnancy in statutes cannot be readily inferred and any interpretation that leads to such conflict must, as…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Thoughts on Regulatory Tussles Involving CCI – II


[*Long post] I shall be dealing with the Delhi HC judgment on Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Competition Commission of India and Anr, limited to the issue of Competition Act versus Patents Act. The idea is to simplify the judgment for the benefit of readers and present views where applicable. This is strictly an academic exercise. I shall not be dealing with the facts and other issues since the mandate is limited here. SpicyIP had already dealt with this judgment before….


Read More »
Competition Law

Thoughts on Regulatory Tussles Involving CCI – I


Introduction The world does not need any more lessons on the need for a “regulated” market so as to preclude market failures. At the same time, it is imperative to design a regulatory framework with minimum frictions amongst the regulators themselves. Having set the context, I intend to pen down my thoughts on regulatory tussles involving Competition Commission of India (CCI). In subsequent posts, I shall critically examine the Delhi High Court judgment in 2016 (Ericsson case) which dealt with…


Read More »
Trademark

SLP against Del HC Order Granting Permission to Market New Biosimilars for Additional Indications Withdrawn


It is reported that Roche has withdrawn the SLP against Delhi HC judgment that granted permission to market new biosimilars for additional indications. As per Livelaw, the Supreme Court bench of Justices R.K.Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, noted in its Order, on August 11: “A letter has been circulated by learned counsel for the petitioners seeking permission to withdraw these Special Leave Petitions.  Permission granted. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.” The Order is available here. Background SpicyIP…


Read More »
Trademark

Trade Marks and Charitable Organisations


I had earlier written on the trademarks obtained by Missionaries of Charity. In the absence of reliable data, I had made several conjectures and therefore, the whole picture was not set out. At this juncture, we are lucky to carry an article written by Ms. Latha R. Nair, one of the top IP lawyers of the country, on Trade Marks and Charitable Organisations. She is a partner with the IP boutique, K&S Partners and has blogged many a times for…


Read More »
Trademark

Delhi HC, Considering inter alia Unique Stylized Font, Decreed against ‘YahooKochi’ in TM Infringement Suit


The Delhi High Court, in a recent TM infringement ex-parte suit (Class 39) concerning ‘YahooKochi’, held in favour of Yahoo Inc. (Plaintiff) and directed the defendants to pay compensation of nearly five lakhs rupees. The Court had earlier granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Yahoo Inc. The judgment is available here. According to the petitioner, “defendants are infringing the plaintiff’s trade mark. In support of his contention, he referred to a print out from defendants’ website- www.yahookochi.com (Ex.PW1/22). He…


Read More »
Trademark

Plausible Reasons for Doubting the Strength of Trademark of Missionaries of Charity


The Missionaries of Charity obtained trademark for the blue striped white cotton saree, according to many news reports. The application was apparently filed in 2013. The organization was apparently granted the trademark in 2016. As per the reports, the organization wanted to prevent the unscrupulous from misusing the pattern for selfish gains. [Hindu report] I do not intend to elaborate on the news reports. The reports are freely available online and elsewhere. I am quite doubtful on the strength of…


Read More »
Trademark

A Nuanced Trademark Distinction: 29(1) vs 29(2)? – Part II by Eashan Ghosh


(Continued….) Part I is available here. Distinguishing Conditions / Effects The third observation from the outcome table is that the key difference between Sections 29(1) and (2), as the defence in Ajanta hinted at, lies in the further condition / effect required to be met. To be clear, the three conditions / effects in issue are: “use in a manner as to render the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trademark” under Section 29(1); “use in…


Read More »