Designs Overlaps in IP Trademark

Passing Off and Design Infringement: The Conflict


A few days ago, I had discussed a Bombay HC Order involving Cello and Modware. Justice Patel had provided relief to Cello on account of Cello successfully establishing, prima facie, both passing off and design infringement. Prashant, after reading the piece, put forth the following query: “If the design of the bottle is acting as an indicator of source, doesn’t it follow that it can be registered as a trademark which means it is incapable of being registered as design because it falls…


Read More »
Designs Trademark

Cello v. Modware #Design Infringement #Passing Off


I write to bring you an analysis of a Bombay HC Justice Patel Order that discusses passing off and design infringement in a mind-bogglingly interesting context… two water bottles. While being incredibly clear at times, the Order was equally ambiguous at places. I shall point these “ambiguities” out over the course of this piece and would be incredibly grateful if readers could shed some light. All assertions of law I make in this piece have been sourced from Venkateswaran on…


Read More »
Trademark

Ajanta Pharma v. Theon Pharmaceuticals #TM Infringement


I write to discuss a recent Bombay HC Justice G.S. Patel Order on trade mark infringement. Though the core reasoning involved is rather straightforward, a few of the questions and arguments raised deserve our attention. Though these aspects might not have been relevant to the final result in the current fact scenario, they are very much relevant in the larger scheme of jurisprudence. Prior to delving into the trickier aspects of the order, let us set aside the less convoluted portion (though…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 23-29)


Thematic Highlights We have three thematic highlights: Mr. Rajiv’s Post critiquing the UK Unwired Planet v. Huawei decision. Inika’s Post on the “Darzi” TM. Prashant’s Post on the constitutionality of the new “Well Known” marks registration procedure. Mr. Rajiv, critiquing the UK High Court of Justice (Patents), covers the following ground: i. After pointing out a large number of details and excerpts, he argues that patent portfolios are antithetical to the FRAND terms and promotion them is problematic on account of limited consistency…


Read More »
Copyright

Delhi HC’s John Doe Order #IPL 2017 #Sony


I write to update you regarding a recent Justice R.K. Gauba Delhi HC order concerning restriction of unauthorized broadcasting/transmission of the VIVO IPL 2017. The order can be found at: Sony Pictures vs Home Cable- IPL 2017. This is more of a detailed report, as opposed to an analytical piece. Sony Pictures Networks India sought two reliefs: i. An ex parte ad interim injunction restricting unauthorized relay of IPL 2017. ii. Appointment of Local Commissioners. Relief (i) The defendants in the…


Read More »
Trademark

Justice Muralidhar’s Googlee (“www.Googlee.in” v. Google)


I write to discuss a Delhi HC Justice Muralidhar order dealing with the dispute over the domain name www.googlee.in (Registered by one Mr. Khatri). Needless to say, Google was the complainant. Prior to critiquing the order, it would be beneficial to familiarize ourselves with the manner of functioning of certain organizations that are affiliated with Domain Name registration. Quick Overview of the .IN Domain Name Resolution Policy Every Domain Name that ends with “.in” (E.g. www.Amazon.in) needs to be registered…


Read More »
Others

Annual Report 2015-16 Review


I write to bring to your attention the Annual Report (2015-2016), compiled by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications (CGPDTM). Instead of coming up with a comprehensive summary of the report, that would largely comprise of drowning you in information, I will attempt to provide you with a basic overview that will help you in digesting and comprehending the otherwise bulky report. But first, I wish to bring to your notice a bit…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP

Part III: Qualcomm v. ACIT #Technology Supplement (CDMA)


Here I will be discussing the CDMA (‘Code Division Multiple Access’) tech. and its link with India. As legal analysts, we only need to understand that the link between a technology and its relation with the tax jurisdiction is relevant in determining tax liability. This has been discussed in detail in Part I (A&B). In other words, this piece is more of a supplementary piece for the enthusiastic reader who wishes to understand the underlying tech. to a greater depth…


Read More »
Copyright Overlaps in IP

Part II: Qualcomm v. ACIT #Royalty #“Copyright” and “Copyrighted Article”


If I haven’t told you already, let me warn that I might be additionally snarky over the course of this series on account of losing three perfectly solid pieces to a Microsoft Word malfunction. In this piece, I will be dealing with the distinction between “copyright” and “copyrighted article”, as discussed in the marvellous 120 paragraph order of Qualcomm. v. ACIT. As usual, let us quickly get acquainted with the so-called “Relevant facts”. Once, there existed a software called Binary…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent

Part IB: Qualcomm v. ACIT #Royalty #Non-Resident #Section. 9 ITA


If the tone I use happens to be terse or unenthusiastic over the course of this series, I beg you to excuse me. Microsoft Word decided to stop responding and consequently, I lost three draft pieces. To make matters infinitely better for me, deadlines are fast approaching. So, let me relax, breathe and start all over again. We will be discussing the last prong of S. 9(1)(vi)(c).    #2“for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source…


Read More »