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.

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

/ By / Copyright

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 […]

Interim Order in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Saregama India Ltd. Read More »

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

/ By / Trademark

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

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

A Critique of DU Photocopy Judgment – II

/ By / Copyright

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

A Critique of DU Photocopy Judgment – II Read More »

A Critique of DU Photocopy Judgment – I

/ By / Copyright

 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

A Critique of DU Photocopy Judgment – I Read More »

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

/ By / Trademark

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

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

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

/ By / Competition Law, Overlaps in IP, Patent

 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

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

Justice Manmohan Singh’s flawed judgment on biosimilars

/ By / Others, Trademark

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

Justice Manmohan Singh’s flawed judgment on biosimilars Read More »

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

/ By / Copyright

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

Inquiry against IPRS: Commission of Inquiry is receiving statements from public Read More »

Call for Papers: Journal of Intellectual Property Law (JIPL), Institute of Law, Nirma University

/ By / Others

Centre for Intellectual Property Rights, Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat invites articles / research papers, case studies, and book reviews on the topics and themes of Intellectual Property Rights for publication in the 2nd Issue of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law for its 2016-17 volume. The Journal of Intellectual Property Law is a peer-reviewed ISSN Serial Journal (ISSN: 2455-0361) published by the Centre for Intellectual Property Rights, Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. It is the

Call for Papers: Journal of Intellectual Property Law (JIPL), Institute of Law, Nirma University Read More »

Monsanto case: IP and Competition Law dimensions

/ By / Competition Law, Patent

My friend Prashant has recently written an excellent post in IPKat titled ‘A Monsanto case that could alter the dynamics of technology transfer to India’. The post is a good read.  I have decided to play the ‘devil’s advocate’ to some of the issues raised by Prashant. Basically, the idea is to present the other side of the coin and thereby, simplify the issues for the benefit of the readers. If this exercise is to deliver its intended result, reading

Monsanto case: IP and Competition Law dimensions Read More »

Scroll to Top