Prashant Reddy

Prashant Reddy

T. Prashant Reddy graduated from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, with a B.A.LLB (Hons.) degree in 2008. He later graduated with a LLM degree (Law, Science & Technology) from the Stanford Law School in 2013. Prashant has worked with law firms in Delhi and in academia in India and Singapore. He is also co-author of the book Create, Copy, Disrupt: India's Intellectual Property Dilemmas (OUP). He has recently been appointed as an Assistant Professor at NALSAR, Hyderabad, starting September 1, 2017.

Others

Delhi High Court Has Liberally Applied Time Incorporated to Award Punitive Damages Even After Justice Bhat Over-ruled It


Subsequent to one of my earlier posts on how the Delhi High Court had continued to apply the over-ruled judgment in Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava, I received a comment informing me that the Delhi bar was well aware of the judgment and that it was cited regularly at the Delhi High Court. So I did some research and published on Live-Law a list of 25 judgments where the Delhi High Court had continued to cite Time Incorporated v. Lokesh…


Read More »
Copyright Designs

Dysfunctional Judgments on Functionality and Design Law


A few months ago, when I wrote on a Delhi High Court judgment in the Carlsberg design infringement case, I received a few comments and emails protesting my claim that Indian design law does not penalize designs which also have a functional aspect. The issue of functionality has been a tricky issue in most jurisdictions because design law is supposed to protect only designs that appeal to the eye while functionality is to be protected under patent law. Life is…


Read More »
Competition Law Drug Regulation

The CCI’s Identity Crisis and Dealing with Misplaced Criticism


The Competition Commission of India (CCI) will complete 14 years of its existence this year, having been established in 2003 (although it became fully functional only much later). Like all teenagers, the people around it can’t seem to identify its exact role in the universe. In the case of the CCI, the question is whether the institution is a part of the executive or the judiciary. This issue was raised before the Supreme Court in the case of Brahm Dutt…


Read More »
Copyright Designs Overlaps in IP

The Delhi High Court Misses Another Opportunity to Rule on the New Section 52(1)(w) in Context of Engineering Drawings


In a recently delivered judgment, the Delhi High Court was once again faced with a plaintiff seeking an interim injunction restraining a defendant from manufacturing a product on the grounds that it was infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in its engineering drawings. The plaintiff Holland L.P. and its Indian partner, claimed to have invented “automatic twist locks” (ATL), to help secure containers on railcars. The system is used by the Indian Railways which put out a tender for procurement of the…


Read More »
Copyright Patent Trademark

Justice Bhat overruled Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava in 2014 (& we discovered it only in 2017)


At a conference held earlier this month in Bangalore (organised by Professors Yogesh Pai, Arul Scaria & T. Ramakrishna of NLU-D & NLSIU), I was surprised and delighted to learn that the infamous judgment in the case of Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava (2005) allowing for the grant of punitive damages in IP cases was overruled in 2014 by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court led by Justice Ravindra Bhat. As judgments go, the Times Incorporated judgment was…


Read More »
Others Patent

Lessons from TRIPS as India negotiates the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership


Last week, 16 Asia-Pacific countries concluded yet another round of negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Billed as one of the biggest regional free trade agreements, RCEP is expected to bring together the ten countries that form ASEAN along with Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand. These countries account for nearly 50% of the global population and 30% of global GDP. As expected, there were several protests in Hyderabad by NGOs and civil society although…


Read More »
Copyright

Guest Post: Is a film more than celluloid?


This post was edited once after it was initially published and it differs from the version emailed to the SpicyIP mailing list. In June, we had an interesting series of posts on the ‘physical copy’ doctrine regarding cinematograph films. Sreyoshi got the ball rolling with her post on the copyright infringement case against the producers of Raabta and this was followed by a post by Advocate Swaroop M. of the Madras High Court. We now have a third, very interesting…


Read More »
Patent Plant Variety Protection

NOC requirement for registering or releasing new plant varieties scrapped


As per a recent report in the Financial Express by Vivian Fernandes, the PPVFR Authority, constituted under the Protection of Plant Variety & Farmer’s Rights Act, 2001 has finally done away with a long-standing requirement of producing a ‘No-Objection-Certificate’ (NOC) from the patentee of a particular GM trait that is used by a breeder while developing a new plant variety and which variety he seeks to register under the PVPFRA. Since the interplay of these rights is slightly confusing, let…


Read More »
Copyright Others Patent Trademark

Madras Bar Association challenges the constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2017 and the new tribunal rules


As recently reported by Bar & Bench, the Madras Bar Association has filed a petition before the Madras High Court challenging the constitutionality of Sections 156 to 189 of the Finance Act, 2017 as also the Tribunal, Appellate and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 that I had written about over here. A bench of the Madras High Court headed by Chief Justice Indira Banerjee has issued notice to the government asking it to…


Read More »
Copyright Others Patent Trademark

Government of India launches ‘Occupy the tribunals’ movement with new rules on appointments and removals of judges of the IPAB & 18 other tribunals


On June 1, 2017 the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance notified in the Gazette of India, the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017. These rules were notified under Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017. It is usually the practice of the Central Government to publish a draft of statutory rules in the Gazette and invite comments from the public before notifying such rules into the law. However…


Read More »