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).

Trademark

Legality of trademark protection for deities in the context of Attukal deity trademark

by Mathews P. George February 18, 2013

1 Comment

We reportedthat the Attukal Bhagawathy Temple Trust (“Trust”) in Kerala had secured trademark protection for the picture of its deity (Trademark No. 1420800) and the title ‘Sabarimala of Women’ (Trademark No. 1420799) under Class 42 – a residuary clause (for temple Services, social services, welfare services and cultural activities). The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court initiated suo moto case against the aforesaid registrations in early 2009 based on a petition faxed by Mr. Praveen Raj. The matter is…

Locus standi and public interest under the GI Act – Analysing GI Registry Order in ‘Darjeeling Tea’ rectification application

by Mathews P. George January 30, 2013

1 Comment

[*Long post] We reported that a rectification application had been filed under Section 27 of Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI Act”) for removal of ‘Darjeeling Tea’ GI. The Assistant Registrar vide Order dated 28.09.2012 (“Darjeeling TeaOrder”) rejected the application inter alia on the ground of absence of locus standi. I shall argue that the Darjeeling Tea Order is legally incorrect vis-à-vis the ground of locus standi. I shall analyse other issues in a later…

Others

SpicyIP Events: Patracode announces Workshop on Tools for Researching and Managing Intellectual Property

by Mathews P. George January 20, 2013

Leave a Comment

SpicyIP is pleased to announce Patracode’s workshop on tools for researching and managing Intellectual Property. Interested participants should note that while there is no registration fee, seats are limited, so all interested parties are requested to confirm by January 21st, 2013. More details as stated below: “Patracode, founded in 2010, is a unit of quick learners who are actively involved in catering the needs of seekers in the field Intellectual Property. They have earned good experience of…

Analysing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013

by Mathews P. George January 19, 2013

1 Comment

[*Long post] I had earlier introduced Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013 (“Policy”). I shall analyse the Policy in this post. An encouraging but incomplete policy document The Policy is quite an encouraging policy document. It marks a significant shift in the approach of the government vis-à-vis its earlier policies – Scientific Policy Resolution of 1958, Technology Policy Statement of 1983 and Science and Technology Policy of 2003. As I had stated earlier, the Policy comes in the light of…

Introducing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013 – II

by Mathews P. George January 9, 2013

Leave a Comment

For ‘Introducing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013-I’ see here For analysis, see here. Gaining Global Competitiveness through Collaboration The STI Policy, 2013 acknowledges open source discoveries as an “interesting innovation system”. Further, it recognizes that knowledge commons is an emerging theme for managing IPRs created through multi-stake holder participation. The policy intends to foster data sharing and access. The policy also intends to tap global resources including Indian diaspora for accelerating the pace of technology-led development. It envisages multi-sectoral…

Introducing Science, Technology and Innovation policy, 2013 – I

by Mathews P. George January 9, 2013

Leave a Comment

I shall introduce the ‘Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013’ (“STI Policy, 2013”) which was recently unveiled by the Prime Minister at the 100th Indian Science Congress. I shall analyse the STI Policy, 2013 in a later post. [The STI Policy, 2013 is available here.] Background The STI Policy, 2013 sets out a significant shift in approach of the government. It is pertinent to take a quick look at the previous policies: a) Scientific Policy Resolution of 1958 (“SPR,…

Filing rectification application under the GI Act, 1999

by Mathews P. George December 25, 2012

1 Comment

[*Long Post] As you are aware of, rectification application can be filed under Section 27 of Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI Act”). I intend to examine whether the aforesaid provision allows filing of rectification application on the ground of public interest. I shall argue in affirmative relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Hardie Trading Ltd. and Anr. v. Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd. (“Hardie Trading Ltd”) and IPAB order in Payyannur ring [covered here]. Prashant…

Single Bench judgment in Star India set aside

by Mathews P. George December 6, 2012

2 Comments

In its judgment dated 3rd December, 2012, the Division Bench of Delhi HC comprising of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Manmohan Singh set aside the Single Bench judgment dated 8th November, 2012 in Star India Pvt. Ltd v. Piyush Aggarwal & Ors. on the ground of serious procedural flaws. [We blogged on the aforesaid Single Bench judgment here and here.] The Division Bench, vide its judgment, restored the civil suits along with all the pending applications which included the application…

Geographical Indication

IPAB on Payyannur Ring

by Mathews P. George November 18, 2012

4 Comments

[*Slightly long post] Background: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”), in its recent order in SubhashJewellery v. Payyannur Pavithra Ring Artisans (“Order”), decided on an appeal made against the order passed by the Registry on 14.07.2009 in opposition proceedings No. GIR/TOP 2/347/09 granting Geographical Indication registration of Payyannur ring to 1st respondent/ applicant, Payyannur Pavithra Ring Artisans & Development Society. The appellant had earlier filed writ petition in the Madras High Court for quashing the order of Registry and restraining…

Internet Fraud: Bogus Open Access Journals

by Mathews P. George October 16, 2012

Leave a Comment

Another ingenious internet fraud is on the rise – fraud committed in the name of Open Access (“OA”) journals. Unlike subscription-based journals, OA journals are those which are freely accessible online. The business model revolves around the author-pay mode — where researchers pay for publishing their work. [The Hindu report is available here.] Broadly speaking, the modus operandi is to send mails to researchers and scientists soliciting manuscripts. They try to entice researchers by keeping the processing fee low….

Praharsh Gour { Hey Anon, Thank you for the comment and bringing this decision to my knowledge. I can only agree with you on this point. In fact if you read... }
{ There is also enough SC case laws to say that the suit can be thrown out if you suppress material facts. Every arguing lawyers favourite case - SP... }
Mathews George { The UK Supreme Court primarily viewed it as a contract law dispute. And based its reasoning on internal and external contexts surrounding the ETSI Policy. Having said that,... }
Praharsh { Dear Anon, Please note this second post is about when the trial phase is not being dispensed with, whereas Prof Basheer's paper is advocating the doing away of... }
{ Disappointing that none of professor Basheer's scholarship was cited in this post - he has an entire paper on whether interim injunctions are required in patent cases. }