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

Delhi HC’s Ex Parte Order in Coca-Cola Company & Anr vs Glacier Water Industries Ltd.


Introduction This is a case of ex parte proceeding concerning trademark dilution. We had dealt with identical legal issues earlier. Therefore, this post is more of a revision for lawyers. [For Prof. Dev Ganjee’s thoughts on trademark dilution, click here.] Facts The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction and damages with respect to infringement of the plaintiffs’ registered trademark, passing off and unfair competition. The Plaintiff wanted the Defendants to be refrained inter alia from “manufacturing or authorizing the…


Read More »
Trademark

A Note on Ansari Bilal Ahmadlal Mohd vs Shafeeque Ahmed Mohammad Sayeed (Bom HC)


This judgment helps to us to have a quick revision of settled legal principles vis-a-vis interim relief in trademark infringement suits. Firstly, in case of interim reliefs, the extent of interference by Appellate forums in the discretion exercised by trial courts is limited. Secondly, in judging confusion, the test to be applied is that of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Background The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court decided on an appeal filed against the order…


Read More »
Copyright

Delhi High Court on Interim Licence under Section 31D of Copyright Act, 1957


[I had covered the developments here and here.] As stated earlier, Saregama India Ltd and Super Casettes Industries Pvt Ltd, before the Delhi High Court, challenged the order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights, granting an interim statutory license under Section 31D(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 in favour of M/S Kuku & Koyal Internet Pvt. Ltd. The Saregama India Ltd was represented by Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Siddharth Chopra and Mr. Munish Mehra….


Read More »
Copyright

When Settled Canons of Law and Law of Precedents Go for a Toss: Issue of Interim Licence under Section 31D of Copyright Act, 1957 by Registrar of Copyrights – Part II


In this post, I shall chronologically set out the updates pertaining to Section 31D: I. In Inderjit Singh & Anr v/s Union of India & ors [CWP- 21945/2016], the Punjab & Haryana High Court had vide order dated 21st October 2016 directed as follows: “the Registrar of Copyright Office-respondent No.3 is directed that if the petitioners approach him by moving an appropriate representation within a period of four weeks from today, he shall consider and decide the same at an…


Read More »
Copyright Overlaps in IP

When Settled Canons of Law and Law of Precedents Go for a Toss: Issue of Interim Licence under Section 31D of Copyright Act, 1957 by Registrar of Copyrights – Part I


India is a Constitutional democracy. The principles of Constitutionalism pervade the Indian polity. Constitutionalism encompasses rule of law, independence of judiciary and separation of powers; the sacrosanct principles meant to ensure fairness and reasonableness in justice delivery system. Set in this background, the Judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21st October 2016 and 14 March 2017 directing the Copyright Registrar to exercise powers under Section 31D of Copyright Act, 1957 are blatantly erroneous. In this post, I…


Read More »
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 »