Mihir Naniwadekar

Perspectives on the Promotion of Innovation

January 7, 2009 / By Mihir Naniwadekar / Innovation

The link between traditional IP protection and innovation has been coming under greater scrutiny. On this blog too, there has been a good deal of discussion on this aspect. To give a few instances, Mr. Basheer in an interview to the Hindu (about which he wrote a post here) articulates concerns about formal IP systems actually promoting innovation.An anonymous reader had pointed out in the comments to another post dealing with the Indian Bayh-Dole: “… Thus, heavy-duty IP protection has […]

Perspectives on the Promotion of Innovation Read More »

Drawing the line between Copyrights and Designs

December 28, 2008 / By Mihir Naniwadekar / Copyright, Design

A recent decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, Rajesh Masrani v. Tahliani Design presents an opportunity to highlight certain issues arising from the interaction between copyright and design protection. The facts: The Plaintiff, a private limited company under the “creative leadership” of fashion designer Tarun Tahliani, had alleged that the drawings which it made in the course of developing garments and accessories were artistic works under Section 2 (c) (i) of the Copyright

Drawing the line between Copyrights and Designs Read More »

Commercial Disparagement: A New Approach to ‘Puffing’?

December 10, 2008 / By Mihir Naniwadekar / Comparative Advertising

A recent judgment of the Madras High Court (Colgate Palmolive v. Anchor, O.A. Nos. 493 and 494 of 2008 in C.S. No. 451 of 2008) appears to have modified the law relating to comparative advertising in cases of commercial disparagement, particularly in relation to ‘puffing’. Puffing is, in general, a superlative claim made about one’s product; and is typically understood as so superlative that an average consumer would not believe the claim. For instance, a claim that “CCC coffee

Commercial Disparagement: A New Approach to ‘Puffing’? Read More »

Delhi HC: No ‘Confusion’ for Dilution under Section 29(4)

November 25, 2008 / By Mihir Naniwadekar / Trademark

A recent decision of a Division Bench (Justices Vikramjit Sen and Bhayana) of the Delhi High Court in Ford Motor Co. v. C.R. Borman is perhaps the first decision to examine the concept of dilution in Section 29 (4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The decision is particularly important for its holding that ‘dilution’ under the Section does not require a finding of confusion. Generally, a trade mark can be infringed only by a person who uses an identical or

Delhi HC: No ‘Confusion’ for Dilution under Section 29(4) Read More »

On ‘Prima Facie’ cases and ‘Originality’: Part II

November 8, 2008 / By Mihir Naniwadekar / Copyright

(In Part I of this note, I made the following points: The “prima facie” standard in injunction law requires the plaintiff to show that he has some possibility of success and that his claim is not vexatious. The probability of success and the relative strengths of the parties’ arguments are not relevant factors. The “originality” standard in copyright law requires that in order to be original, a work must involve some intellectual skill and judgment according to the standard in

On ‘Prima Facie’ cases and ‘Originality’: Part II Read More »

On ‘Prima Facie’ cases and ‘Originality’: Part I

November 8, 2008 / By Mihir Naniwadekar / Copyright

In determining how the standards of originality are to be applied in particular cases, it is essential to note that in a majority of cases, the Courts are called upon to decide whether to grant a temporary (or interim) injunction (i.e. an injunction awarded until final disposal of the suit) or not. The significance of this is not that it alters the legal tests for “originality”, but that it does alter the results of the application of those tests in

On ‘Prima Facie’ cases and ‘Originality’: Part I Read More »

SpicyIP Events: WIPO Forum on "Role of IP in the Innovative Economy"

November 7, 2008 / By Mihir Naniwadekar / Uncategorized

WIPO/CCM/DEL/05/ The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in association with the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (Government of India) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) is organizing an Inter-Regional Forum on “Role of Intellectual Property in the Innovative Economy” in New Delhi on the 26th and 27th of November, 2008. The conference seeks to “engage the stakeholders to share their experiences, articulate views and make meaningful recommendations regarding IP issues related to dynamic use

SpicyIP Events: WIPO Forum on "Role of IP in the Innovative Economy" Read More »

Guest Post: Delhi High Court on ‘Originality’ and ‘Fair dealing’

(In a recent judgment in Chancellor Masters of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House, Justice Bhat of the Delhi High Court had the opportunity to once again examine the law relating to the standard of originality in copyright law. Additionally, the judgment also contains an extensive discussion of ‘fair dealing’. The following is a guest post on the judgment contributed by Mathews George, a 3rd year student at the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata) The recent judgment of the Delhi

Guest Post: Delhi High Court on ‘Originality’ and ‘Fair dealing’ Read More »

The Innovation Bill, 2008, and Trade Secrets: Part II

October 27, 2008 / By Mihir Naniwadekar / Innovation

In an earlier post, I had looked at some of the provisions in the Innovation Bill, 2008 dealing with the protection of trade secrets. This post continues that discussion, and I now focus on a few areas in the Bill which are likely to be controversial. ‘Public interest’ and ‘Reasonable royalties’? Section 11 of the Bill, “Exceptions to Misappropriation of Confidential Information”, is a rather fascinating provision. Particularly interesting is Section 11 (c) which says “Confidential information shall not have

The Innovation Bill, 2008, and Trade Secrets: Part II Read More »

The Innovation Bill, 2008, and Trade Secrets: Part I

October 26, 2008 / By Mihir Naniwadekar / Innovation

A previous post on this blog looked at some of the important provisions in the National Innovation Bill, 2008. I now look at the impact which the Bill may have on the important area of protection of trade secrets. In particular, this post will deal with (a) the nature of the protection granted under the Bill, (b) the subject-matter entitled to protection, and (c) the duties cast on third parties who have received any confidential information. The Nature of Protection:

The Innovation Bill, 2008, and Trade Secrets: Part I Read More »