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 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

Delhi High Court on Trans-Border Reputation in Trademark Law

by
Leave a Comment

The Delhi High Court, in its judgment in Prius Auto Industries Ltd & Ors. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki, inter alia considered the aspect of trans-border reputation in fairly well-detailed terms.  Both the parties were represented by leading IP practitioners. The judgment is significant for practitioners in understanding the strategy adopted, the kind of evidence submitted before the Court and finally, Court’s approach towards the same. [Note: This post shall deal only with the aspect of trans-border reputation.] Facts Toyota used…


Read More »
Trademark

‘Tata’ is a well-known mark, reaffirms Delhi HC judgment in Tata Sons Limited v. Ram Niwas & Ors

by
Leave a Comment

The Plaintiff filed the present suit inter alia seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from directly or indirectly dealing in the business of providing transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement, packaging / moving services under the domain name www.tatapackers.com and/or using any trademark/ description/name/device bearing the trademark TATA or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark TATA. [The judgment is available here] It is contended that the Plaintiff has been continuously using…


Read More »
Copyright

Interim Order in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Saregama India Ltd.

by
1 Comment

The Plaintiff filed the suit before the Delhi High Court for restraining the Defendant from infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff in the soundtrack and audio visuals (over the music of 29 cinematograph films). The Plaintiff contended that the claims of the Defendant arise from assignment in the year 1981. Citing Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act, it was contended that this assignment cannot vest in the Defendant the right of exploitation of the copyright in the medium or mode…


Read More »
Trademark

A Brief Note on Kar HC Judgment in M/s. Avighna Coffee Private Limited v. M/s. Cothas Coffee Co.

by
Leave a Comment

The Karnataka High Court judgment lays down some significant pointers in trademark law which are helpful for practitioners: firstly, on lifting the corporate veil and secondly, for re-affirming the clean hands doctrine. Further, it is an interesting read as the judgment delivered by Justice P. S. Dineshkumar is well-structured and concise. This note shall deal with the prominent arguments of both the parties and the corresponding determination of the High Court. As trademark practitioners are well aware of, there are…


Read More »
Copyright

A Critique of DU Photocopy Judgment – II

by
Leave a Comment

The Delhi High Court judgment, unfortunately, doesn’t appreciate the aforesaid jurisprudential nuances. Practically speaking, the Delhi High Court judgment, though technically confined to the territorial limits of Delhi, has weakened the publishers in any future bargain. It doesn’t treat Section 52(1)(i) as a limited exception but as a determining, controlling norm in the name of ‘access to education’. As to the extent it treats Section 52(1)(i) as a controlling norm, it has gone beyond the existing jurisprudence on exceptions to…


Read More »
Copyright

A Critique of DU Photocopy Judgment – I

by
Leave a Comment

 I co-authored an article in Livelaw wherein the Delhi High Court judgment in DU photocopy case was critiqued. I am re-publishing the article in two parts. As a prelude, I would like to make some observations. I would like to pay tributes to late Justice Antonia Scalia of US Supreme Court whom I consider to be one among the most influential jurists of all time. He passed away on 13 February 2016. As a country with common law tradition, Indian…


Read More »
Trademark

A case study which deals with trademark infringement: Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited v. M/S R.S. Sales Corporation & Anr.

by
2 Comments

At the outset, this (uncomplicated) case law (Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited vs R.S. Sales Corporation & Anr on 28 July 2016) doesn’t set out or provide clarification on any point of law. Further, this is not a final Order. It makes the previously issued interim order absolute during the pendency of the suit. Even then, this judgment, to my mind, gives insights pertaining to discerning and devising strategies, presents an indicative list as to what to do and what not to…


Read More »
Competition Law Overlaps in IP Patent

My views on Session on ‘Open Standards’ in SpicyIP Consilience, 2016

by
Leave a Comment

 In the recently concluded SpicyIP Consilience 2016 Conference at NLS, we had an interesting session on Open Standards, FRAND and Royalty-Free models (pertaining to licensing of Standard Essential Patents). Mr. Rajiv Choudhary, Prof. Yogesh Pai, Mr. Navneet Hariharan and Prof. Natasha Nayak spoke in this session. The session discussed some interesting issues pertaining to: a) creation of value by royalty free standards; b) working of FRAND; c) creation of value by standards; and d) royalty-free model vis-a-vis FRAND model. If you…


Read More »
Others Trademark

Justice Manmohan Singh’s flawed judgment on biosimilars

by
14 Comments

In this post, Prashant Reddy examines Justice Manmohan Singh’s judgment in the lawsuit filed by Genentech and Roche against Biocon and Mylan over the launch of a biosimilar for Herceptin ®. Prashant, through his incisive analysis, argues that the judgment lacks coherent reasoning. This is indeed a “disturbing trend” since India is a common-law jurisdiction and therefore, legal reasoning forms an important component of legal jurisprudence. Recently, Prof. Shamnad inter alia dealt with this issue here. [*Long Post] Justice Manmohan…


Read More »
Copyright

Inquiry against IPRS: Commission of Inquiry is receiving statements from public

by
Leave a Comment

As SpicyIP reported earlier, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into alleged irregularities in the Indian Performing Rights Society Limited. The Inquiry Officer is deemed to be a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. The scope of inquiry includes non-distribution of royalties by imposing illegal conditions, illegal transfer of mechanical rights and ringtone royalties to PPL, forgery of signature etc. According to public notice issued by MHRD, “Notice is hereby given that all persons having…


Read More »
  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  6. 4
  7. 5
  8. 6
  9. 7
  10. 8
  11. 9
  12. ...
  13. 17