Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 22-28)


The thematic highlight for the week is Mr. Rajiv’s overview of the legal issues that Qualcomm is facing in various jurisdictions, by virtue of its alleged anti-competetive practices, overpriced licenses and non-compliance with FRAND terms. While discussing four cases in which Qualcomm ran into legal trouble for the above mentioned reasons, he deals with the following broad areas: i. A brief breakdown of Qualcomm’s general manner of functioning. ii. Qualcomm’s Anti-competitive practices. iii. Manner of determining jurisdiction while imposing regulations….


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 11-17)


Our first thematic highlight is Ritvik’s fascinating piece dealing with the jamboree of artificial persons, robots and copyright. His primary discussion points were the following: i. Whether artificial persons (e.g. a company) have copyright related moral rights? ii. Views regarding copyright ownership over robot created works. iii. He concludes with his take on who should own the copyright over such works. Another thematic highlight of the week is Vasundhara’s lucid, yet insightful analysis of whether India’s patent regime follows a ‘first…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 30-November 5)


As a result of a large output on the blog in the past week, I have the difficult task of choosing highlights. In my humble opinion, there are multiple posts which are worthy of your attention. Nevertheless, I shall pick a few as highlights. The thematic highlights of the piece are Prof. Basheer and Dr. Arul’s pieces on the relationship between the industry and the academia. In a lucid two part post (here and here), Prof. Basheer, while evaluating the…


Read More »
Copyright

The “Stellar” Case (DHC) – Copyright and Confidential Information


M/S Stellar Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. deals with two areas: 1. Copyrightability of compilations. 2. Extent to which a contract can determine the boundaries of “Confidential Information”. But before we get to these questions, let us get acquainted with the facts. Relevant Facts The defendants were former employees of the plaintiff. The defendants left the Plaintiff and set up their own company. The defendants’ company works in the same field as the plaintiff’s i.e. Data Security….


Read More »
Others

Justice Patel’s Order (GoAir Against Google & Indigo) & the Propriety of Judicial Humour


Judges seem to be conspiring to amplify the extent of misery affiliated with my life. As I slave upon their convoluted novellas, I can almost imagine them leaning back upon their high chairs in some remote dungeon, mirthfully rubbing their hands together, while cackling away in glee. So, whenever I am allotted a Justice Patel judgment, to put it subtly, I am quite pleased. Well, that was a bit of an exaggeration. This is probably a more apt representation of…


Read More »
Others

India’s Opening Statement at WIPO Meet


As the title explains quite succinctly, I write to bring to your notice India’s opening statement at the 56th Session of the Assemblies of Member States of WIPO. You can find the statement here. Prior to discussing the various elements of the statement, let me direct you to the 20th Paragraph. The statement brings to attention the fact that India was the first to ratify the Marrakesh treaty. I would like to pause at this point and talk about India and…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 18-24)


Both the thematic and topical highlights of the week have to be Prof. Basheer’s opinion piece in the DNA on the Photocopy case and Prashant’s two part piece providing a counter argument to Justice Endlaw’s reasoning in the historic DU Photocopy case. Irrespective of which faction of IP thinkers you owe your allegiance to, it is difficult to argue that Prashant does not have a point. I found the second part especially informative. In the first part, he discusses the…


Read More »
Patent

Yahoo’s Patent Application Denied Due to Section 3(k)


Yahoo filed a patent application in 2007 for a method that scheduled the appearance of users’ online presence in an Instant Messaging (IM) application. Recently, it was turned down on grounds of containing subject matter that is ineligible for patenting. In this piece, I am going to provide you with a preliminary analysis of the judgment. I shall go into the broader issues in a later post. Nevertheless, I have attempted to weave in all earlier pieces on the same…


Read More »
Trademark

The “Sun Control” Mark


Given that most of today’s judges grew up in the era of Amitabh’s ‘Angry Young Man’ and laconic western protagonists, it is rather strange to see so many judgments play such a significant role in aiding deforestation. Even more concerning is that when it comes to comprehensibility, judges seem to be far more influenced by Gulzar’s indecipherable lyrics than Vijay’s sharp dialogue delivery. Thankfully, Justice Patel keeps it short and simple. Before I make this piece about my undying love…


Read More »
Trademark

The “Superhero” Trade Mark


Around two months ago, DC and Marvel attempted to force their will onto a small time author. Graham Jules, author of “Business Zero to Superhero”, was taken to court for using the trade marked word “Superhero” in his book’s title, only for the famed comic publishers to back out subsequently for “commercial reasons”. This here, covers the legal battle apart from providing a nice little overview of superhero literature through the 1900s. I will not be directly discussing the above…


Read More »