Author name: Prarthana Patnaik

Adarsh had previously written two posts on the various misunderstandings surrounding the Plant Varieties Act (“PPV Act“). He had focussed on the Public Notice 01/2019 (“Notice“) published in May 2019, and had pointed out that the Notice was ultra vires. In his third post, he points out that the Notice states that only single cross hybrids could be registered. In his post, he explains how the PPV Act and UPOV allow for registration of registration of multi-parent hybrids too. Divij wrote a …

SpicyIP Fortnightly Review (November 4 – 17) Read More »

Thematic Highlight Adarsh wrote a two-part post on the various misunderstandings surrounding the Plant Varieties Act (“PPV Act“). In the first part of the post, he focussed on the Public Notice 01/2019 (“Notice“) published in May 2019, which created a compound system for seeking registration of ‘hybrids’ and ‘parental lines’. He points out that the Notice is ultra vires since the Notice has been issued under Section 20 of the PPV Act, which is simply the provision empowering the PPV Authority to examine …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 21-November 3) Read More »

Prashant analysed the challenges highlighted by a recent report released by the Indian Music Industry (IMI) and Deloitte: (i) Music Piracy:  He states that it is not very relevant in a day and age where everyone has free access to music if s/he has access to the internet. (ii) Value-gap: He agrees with the report’s stance on the issue of value-gap due to legislative measures such as: (1) Section 31D of the Copyright Act, which allows the radio and television industry to …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 9-15) Read More »

This week, we had a guest post by Eashan Ghosh on Suzuki Motor v. Suzuki India, a Delhi HC ruling dealing with the trademark infringement of the trade mark ‘SUZUKI’. After giving a brief overview of the case, he then delves into how portions of the judgment have been copied word to word from The Timken Company v. Timken Services, a 2013 Delhi HC judgment. He further delves into the Court’s 3 different renditions of delay and the problem in applying …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 29 – August 4) Read More »

Thematic Highlight  Divij wrote a post on a recent proposal of the WIPO, called ‘Building Respect For Intellectual Property Database Project’, an online platform to which authorized agencies in WIPO Member States can upload lists of websites which deliberately facilitate copyright infringement. Divij focuses on several ambiguities in this proposal, such as the identities of these ‘authorised agencies’ and the authoritativeness of such a list. He concludes by stating that the WIPO seems to be endorsing a system for removing funding from …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 15-21) Read More »

Thematic Highlight  Pankhuri released the second post in the blog post series on The Sustainable Seed Innovations Project. In her post, she provides a brief look into Phase I and II of the Project. Phase I seeks to look into the incentives for farmer-level seed innovations from indigenous varieties in India and research about the the role of public recognition for farmers’ seed innovation in creating such incentives. Phase II seeks to publish a position paper for the Government of India, spread stories of …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 1-7) Read More »

Pankhuri co-authored a post with Bhavik on a recent decision of the Delhi HC, which dismissed Bayer’s appeal and left it to the trial court to apply the reasonable relationship test for deciding whether the use and export of Bayer’s patented drug ‘Sorafenib Tosylate’ by Natco and Alembic was permissible under Section 107A of the Patents Act (India’s Bolar Provision). The Court ruled that the ‘export’ of a patented invention for experimental purposes was covered under the provision. In their post, the …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 17-23) Read More »

Divij broke the news about a recent order delivered by the Delhi HC in Raj Rewal v. Union of India and Ors., wherein the Court ruled that an architect, in the capacity of a legal ‘author’ of a building, does not have the right to object to its modification or destruction by the owner of such building. The Court’s decision contradicts the one delivered in Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, where the Delhi HC had taken an opposite stance on the …

SpicyIP Fortnightly Review (May 20-June 2) Read More »