Author name: Mathews P. George

Mathews is a graduate of West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. He pursued LLM in 'IP and Competition Law' from the Munich Intellectual Property Law Centre (a joint collaboration of Max Plank Institute for Innovation and Competition, University of Augsburg, Technical University of Munich and George Washington University, Washington). His areas of practice include Technology Law in general (IPR, Competition Law, Data Protection Law etc) Corporate Law, Contract Law and Public Law (Constitutional Law and Criminal Law). He practises law and policy at both national and international levels. Presently, he is in Kerala. In addition to litigation before various courts in Kerala, he is also involved in various national and international policy and academic initiatives.

Introducing ‘Principles for Intellectual Property provisions in Bilateral and Regional agreements’

/ By / Uncategorized

I intend to introduce you all to the write-up ‘Principles for Intellectual Property provisions in bilateral and regional agreements’ (“Principles”) released by Max Planck Institute available here. The Principles recommends international rules and procedures that can achieve a better, mutually advantageous and balanced regulation of international IP. The Principles is open for signature [here] for anyone who shares the objectives. The Principles is divided into two parts: Part One – Observations and Considerations and Part Two – Recommendations. Part One – Observations […]

Introducing ‘Principles for Intellectual Property provisions in Bilateral and Regional agreements’ Read More »

SPICY IP TIDBIT: IPAB reverts “DARJEELING LOUNGE” matter to Registrar

/ By / Uncategorized

Background ITC Limited, the appellant, applied for the mark “DARJEELING LOUNGE” which was advertised on 07.02.2005.  Notice of opposition was served on the appellant on 22.12.2005 (which is disputed) by the Tea Board (the respondent).  The appellant filed the counter statement on 08.03.2006.  Observing that the notice of opposition was served on the appellant on 22.12.2005, the deputy Registrar held that the counter statement was filed beyond the statutory period. Further, as per the impugned order, notice was served vide

SPICY IP TIDBIT: IPAB reverts “DARJEELING LOUNGE” matter to Registrar Read More »

SPICY IP TIDBIT: Tea Board refused interim injunction in Tea Board – ITC ‘Darjeeling’ dispute

/ By / Uncategorized

As we reported earlier, the Tea Board of India had earlier lost its appeal before the Calcutta High Court for the purpose of obtaining injunction against the Indian conglomerate ITC Limited, and its hospitality/hotel chain, from using the word ‘Darjeeling‘ in connection with its tea lounge. In its order dated 24 August 2011, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld the earlier decision of the Single Judge (which we reported here and here), stating that the injunction had

SPICY IP TIDBIT: Tea Board refused interim injunction in Tea Board – ITC ‘Darjeeling’ dispute Read More »

Delhi HC on trademark protection for domain name

/ By / Trademark

The Delhi High Court, in its recent judgment in Tata Sons Ltd & Anr. v. Arno Palmen& Anr., dealt with trademark protection for domain names. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking permanent injunction against the defendants from using the trademark/domain name “WWW.TATAINFOTECH.IN” or any other mark/domain name which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ trademarks – “TATA” and “TATA INFOTECH”. The instant dispute is another instance of cybersquatting. Cybersquatting (also known as

Delhi HC on trademark protection for domain name Read More »

Standing Committee Report on ‘The Universities Research and Innovation Bill, 2012′ – II

/ By / Innovation

(Continued…) Apprehension about easy entry of foreign Universities in India The Committee was of the view that in view of the Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operations) Bill, 2010 envisaging regulation of entry and operations of foreign universities in the country, it is improper to provide an alternative and comparatively easier route to foreign universities through the proposed legislation without any proper checks and balances. According to the Committee, “it does not seem to be a wise move

Standing Committee Report on ‘The Universities Research and Innovation Bill, 2012′ – II Read More »

Standing Committee Report on ‘The Universities Research and Innovation Bill, 2012′ – I

/ By / Innovation

The recently released 248th Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development (“Committee”) was highly critical of the Universities Research and Innovation Bill, 2012 (“Bill”) including its fundamental presumptions and framework. I shall introduce the aforesaid Report in these posts. The Universities Research and Innovation Bill, 2012 Despite having one of the largest higher education systems in the world with 600 Universities and 33000 colleges-publicly and privately funded, only a few Indian institutions of learning figure in the list

Standing Committee Report on ‘The Universities Research and Innovation Bill, 2012′ – I Read More »

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

/ By / Innovation

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

‘First set up the labs, then dream the Nobel’ Read More »

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

/ By / 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

Legality of trademark protection for deities in the context of Attukal deity trademark Read More »

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

/ By / Uncategorized

[*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

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

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

/ By / Others

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

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

Scroll to Top