Author name: Praharsh Gour

Breaking: Finance Minister Proposes a Draft Bill in Lok Sabha to Shut Down IPAB

/ By / Others

Just hours ago we broke the story about the Supreme Court judgement (pdf) dismissing the application seeking extension of the incumbent IPAB Chairperson and now we are in knowledge of an immensely interesting Draft Bill (pdf) introduced in the Lok Sabha which proposes to shut IPAB for good! The Bill was introduced the day before yesterday (11.02.2021) by the Union Finance Minister Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, bearing the title “The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation And Conditions Of Service) Bill, 2021”. While seeking […]

Breaking: Finance Minister Proposes a Draft Bill in Lok Sabha to Shut Down IPAB Read More »

Breaking: Supreme Court Dismisses Application Seeking Extension of Justice Manmohan Singh as IPAB Chairperson

/ By / Others, Plant Variety Protection

Hitting the (seemingly) final nail and ending the trail of extension requests, the Supreme Court via its order yesterday (12/02/2021 (pdf) ) dismissed the application seeking another extension to the tenure of the incumbent IPAB Chairperson. The application for extension was filed by the AIPPI (aka the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property) and was a part of a writ petition which was disposed of by the court after tagging it to Madras High Court Bar Association decision.

Breaking: Supreme Court Dismisses Application Seeking Extension of Justice Manmohan Singh as IPAB Chairperson Read More »

Delhi High Court Interprets ‘Export’ as ‘Use’ in India; Grants Interim Injunction to Lundbeck

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court passed an order last month in the matter of H Lundbeck A/S v. Hetro Drugs Ltd., whereby it ruled that “export of the products from India would amount to use of the product in India” under Section 107 of the Patents Act. While according this meaning to the term ‘export’, the court however, did not elucidate on the reasoning for its interpretation. The present post will discuss why the present ruling is inconsistent with the nature of

Delhi High Court Interprets ‘Export’ as ‘Use’ in India; Grants Interim Injunction to Lundbeck Read More »

Supreme Court Revisits Tribunal Culture (Yet Again): Upholds Validity of 2020 Rules with Conditions

/ By / Copyright, Geographical Indication, Others, Patent, Plant Variety Protection, Trademark

Adding to an existing trail of decisions on administration of the tribunals, the Supreme Court passed a detailed judgement in Madras High Court Bar Association v. Union of India last month, wherein it upheld the constitutional validity of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020 (or Tribunal Rules 2020). Among other things, the decision is crucial for its observation on appointment of the Chairpersons, Vice-Chairperson and Technical Members to

Supreme Court Revisits Tribunal Culture (Yet Again): Upholds Validity of 2020 Rules with Conditions Read More »

As 15 Asia Pacific Countries Sign RCEP, India Chooses to Sit Out

/ By / Others, Patent

Last week, ten south-east Asian countries along with Japan, China, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand signed the Agreement on Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) making it the world’s largest trade bloc. Initially projected as the alternative to Trans Pacific Partnership, the negotiations for this free trade agreement (FTA) were underway since 2012 and after 31 rounds (as per Wikipedia), the member states finally sealed the deal four days ago via a video conference. While some reports suggest that the

As 15 Asia Pacific Countries Sign RCEP, India Chooses to Sit Out Read More »

Delhi HC Delivers a Blow to “Delhivery”: Rules the Mark to be Phonetically Generic; Ineligible for Statutory Benefits

/ By / Trademark

In an interesting turn of events, the Delhi HC on 12th October, 2020, vacated an interim injunction effectively permitting the Respondent (Treasure Vase Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) to use the impugned trademark ‘DELIVER-E’.  In doing so the court held that the Applicant’s (Delhivery Pvt. Ltd.) registered trademark ‘DELHIVERY’ is phonetically similar to the English word ‘delivery’ and is a generic mark, not eligible for benefit of statutory rights. The court reiterated that unless a generic mark has achieved distinctiveness, it cannot

Delhi HC Delivers a Blow to “Delhivery”: Rules the Mark to be Phonetically Generic; Ineligible for Statutory Benefits Read More »

Wishful Thinking? Analyzing India and South Africa’s Joint Statement to Waive Key Provisions of TRIPS- Part II

/ By / Copyright, COVID-19, Patent, Trade Secret

In the first part of this two-part post, I assessed the joint statement proposed by South Africa and India for waiver of certain key provisions of TRIPS. Following the joint statement, 379 NGOs and members of civil societies wrote to WTO, in support of the waiver. On the day of the meeting, the proposal attracted the support of a large number of developing countries and LDCs, notably Tanzania, Chad, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Venezuela, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Egypt, Indonesia, Argentina,

Wishful Thinking? Analyzing India and South Africa’s Joint Statement to Waive Key Provisions of TRIPS- Part II Read More »

Wishful Thinking? Analyzing India and South Africa’s Joint Statement to Waive Key Provisions of TRIPS – Part I

/ By / Copyright, COVID-19, Overlaps in IP, Patent, Trade Secret

On 2nd October, 2020, India and South Africa issued a joint statement before the WTO TRIPS Council, with a request to waive “the implementation, application and enforcement of Sections 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement in relation to prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19.” This waiver, annexed with a draft decision for the WTO General Council, was requested to ensure that IPRs do not encumber the access to affordable medicines or R&D, manufacturing and

Wishful Thinking? Analyzing India and South Africa’s Joint Statement to Waive Key Provisions of TRIPS – Part I Read More »

University of Miami Wins Appeal at IPAB over Cancer Drug Patent ‘Coenzyme Q10 Formulations and Methods of Use’

/ By / Patent

For the fourth time in past two months the IPAB allowed an appeal against the order of the Controller and granted patent in favor of the appellant. The IPAB through order dated 25th August, 2020, (pdf) allowed an appeal against the Controller of Patents’ (Respondent) rejection of  the University of Miami’s (Appellant) application over a pharmaceutical composition comprising “Topical Co-enzyme Q10 (CoQ 10) Formulations and Methods of use” for treatment of cancer. Among other reasons, the Controller had deemed that

University of Miami Wins Appeal at IPAB over Cancer Drug Patent ‘Coenzyme Q10 Formulations and Methods of Use’ Read More »

A Tale of Two Sujatas: Delhi HC Reflects on Suppression of Material Facts and Clean Hands Doctrine

/ By / Trademark

In an interesting scenario that perhaps adds to the mounting pile of evidence of ex-parte interim injunctions being problematic, the Delhi High Court on 9th September, 2020, modified an ex-parte interim injunction order after finding that the plaintiff concealed material facts during the hearing. The initial order had estopped the defendants, Sujata Electronics (defendant no. 1), its manufactures (defendants no. 2 & 4), and its dealers (defendant no. 3) from manufacturing, importing, selling any products under the mark ‘SUJATA’. And

A Tale of Two Sujatas: Delhi HC Reflects on Suppression of Material Facts and Clean Hands Doctrine Read More »

Scroll to Top