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).


‘First set up the labs, then dream the Nobel’

I had earlier analysed the ‘Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013’. I had inter alia noted that the policy does not focus on enhancing R&D facilities in universities. On the other hand, it intends to multiply inter-university centres “to enable a wide cross section of university researchers to access advanced research facilities and equipment which are otherwise not available in university environments.”   In this regard, I intend to introduce an interesting article in ‘The Hindu’ titled ‘First set up the…

Read More »

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

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…

Read More »

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

[*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…

Read More »

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

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…

Read More »

Analysing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013

[*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…

Read More »

Introducing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2013 – II

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…

Read More »

Introducing Science, Technology and Innovation policy, 2013 – I

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,…

Read More »

Filing rectification application under the GI Act, 1999

[*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…

Read More »

Single Bench judgment in Star India set aside

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…

Read More »
Geographical Indication

IPAB on Payyannur Ring

[*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…

Read More »