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.

A Note on Madras High Court Judgment in M/S.N.Ranga Rao & Sons vs M/S.Shree Balaji Associates

/ By / Trademark

Background This Madras High Court judgment sets out certain significant pointers with respect to defensive registration (in the context of Trade Marks Act, 1958) and well-known marks (in the context of Trade Marks Act, 1999). My endeavour is to highlight these aspects of the judgment. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying to quash the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent viz., Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The IPAB had earlier allowed the appeal filed by the […]

A Note on Madras High Court Judgment in M/S.N.Ranga Rao & Sons vs M/S.Shree Balaji Associates Read More »

The Producer’s Dubbing Right – A Note on Madras High Court’s Decision in Thiagarajan Kumararaja v. M/S Capital Film Works

/ By / Copyright

We are extremely pleased to present before you a guest post written by Sheetal Srikanth. She is an associate at MVS Chambers, Chennai. She is a practising advocate at Madras High Court. She pursued her LLM from University of Toronto, specialising in IPR. She critically analyses the Madras High Court judgment in Thiagarajan Kumararaja v. M/s. Capital Film Works India (Pvt) Ltd. SpicyIP had dealt with this judgment here. This post brings in certain dimensions and perspectives which are quite

The Producer’s Dubbing Right – A Note on Madras High Court’s Decision in Thiagarajan Kumararaja v. M/S Capital Film Works Read More »

Videos Mocking Rahul Gandhi Taken Down From You Tube

/ By / Copyright

Two videos mocking Rahul Gandhi were taken down from a pro-Modi YouTube channel after the Congress served it with copyright violation notice, reported Times of India. The channel, “I Support Narendra Modi,” had posted two short clips which made fun of Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s public interaction at a Singapore university. These clips had added commentary in overlaid text making fun of the Congress president. According to the Congress, the original videos were shot by the Singapore University and they were uploaded under “Standard YouTube

Videos Mocking Rahul Gandhi Taken Down From You Tube Read More »

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

/ By / Trademark

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

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

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

/ By / Trademark

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

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

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

/ By / Copyright

[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.

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

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

/ By / Copyright

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

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 Read More »

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

/ By / Copyright, Overlaps in IP

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

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 Read More »

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

/ By / Trademark

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

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

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

/ By / Trademark

[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

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

Scroll to Top