Author name: Prateek Surisetti

Alias: Suri Net Worth: 0$. NALSAR Batch of 2019. Characteristic Features: 1. Thinks he's funny. 2. Can't shut-up about having topped in Class II. 3. Takes deep personal offence when his cricketing talent is questioned. 4. Will definitely reference his status as World#1 @ Reflex Ball (A sport he invented), within 10 minutes of conversing with him. Notable Endeavours: 1. Founder Access Fitness (Movement at NALSAR that promotes utilization of public spaces for furtherance of sport and fitness) 2. Author "Good Morning Miss Hobby" 3. Travel Photographer (Antarctica, India) Details @ www.facebook.com/prateekss Contact: [email protected]

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

/ By / Copyright

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 […]

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

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

/ By / Others, Patent

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

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

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

/ By / Others, Patent

I write to discuss the case of Qualcomm. v. ACIT. For better comprehensibility, I will be covering the issues over three parts. Part I (A&B): Applicability of S. 9 (1)(vi)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Part II: Distinction between “copyright” and “copyrighted article”. Part III: Explanation of Relevant Technology (CDMA Tech.). At the outset itself, note that the order is of a slightly different kind. While it clearly establishes the manner in which the rules are supposed to function, it

Part IA: Qualcomm v. ACIT #Royalty #Non-Resident #Section. 9 ITA Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 2-8)

/ By / Others

Topical Highlight  We have Inika notifying you about Javed Akhtar’s (Chairman) and Achille Forler’s (Advisor) appointment by the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) to the Board. She also discusses the past failings of the society, while hoping for greater transparency and better governance in the future. Thematic Highlight  Next up, Fellowship applicant Divij Joshi, while discussing the liability of online marketplaces for trade mark infringement, brings up the following discussion points: i. EU and US case law on the same issue (L’Oreal

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 2-8) Read More »

Joint Trade Mark Ownership: Competing Values

/ By / Trademark

While discussing the “superhero” trade mark (here), I had promised to discuss joint TM ownership. In that case, DC and Marvel jointly owned the trade marked word “superhero“.  By “Joint Trade Mark Ownership”, I am referring to two separate entities (not a joint-venture) owning one single mark in the same geographical region over the same kind of products or services. Actually, I was required to discuss a specific case involving a split in a family and the IP complexities arising

Joint Trade Mark Ownership: Competing Values Read More »

“Phillauri” Copyright Infringement Case #Lastminute Complainants

/ By / Copyright

Somewhere midway through reading Justice Patel’s order dealing with the Phillauri copyright infringement case, I was convinced that the Plaintiff’s counsel would soon have to initiate a medical course involving anti-depressants. J. Patel was absolutely brutal.  I am getting ahead of myself. The allegedly infringing work, Phillauri, is…err…a comedy film (?) that deals with tree spirits, subsequent marriage with tree spirits and analysis of said tree spirits mortal life. Interestingly, the allegedly infringed work, Mangal Phera, is a horror flick.

“Phillauri” Copyright Infringement Case #Lastminute Complainants Read More »

Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (Salient Features)

/ By / Trademark

I write to bring to your notice the coming into force of the Trade Mark rules, 2017. It overrules Trade Mark rules, 2002. Let us look at a few of the salient features. Number of Forms have been brought down from 74 to 8 One can clearly understand the manner in which this has been carried about by comparing Schedule 2 of the 2002 rules and the 2017 rules. The 2017 rules opted for formats that could be used for multiple types of

Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (Salient Features) Read More »

Part VI: Choco Wars: Cadbury Strikes Back (Kit Kat shape)

/ By / Trademark

In this part, I am going to deal with Question 2: “(2)   Where a shape consists of three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, is registration of that shape as a trade mark precluded by Article 3(1)(e)(i) and/or (ii) of Directive 2008/95 …?” But first, a quick analysis of the “Essential Elements” process. Relevant Provision Directive 2008/95 Article 3 “1. The following shall not be

Part VI: Choco Wars: Cadbury Strikes Back (Kit Kat shape) Read More »

Part V: Choco Wars: Cadbury Strikes Back (Kit Kat shape)

/ By / Trademark

(Gruff Voiceover) Previously on SpicyIP’s Choco Wars: Nestle had successfully prevented Cadbury from registering the colour Pantone 2685C. *In the courtroom, Cadbury’s CEO glares at his Nestle Counterpart* *Screen goes blank* In this piece, I shall explain how Cadbury thwarted Nestle’s attempt to register the following shape: Yes, indeed. Nestle tried to register the shape of Kit Kat as a trade mark. So, without much ado, let us get straight to the facts. What we call “Kit Kat” today, was

Part V: Choco Wars: Cadbury Strikes Back (Kit Kat shape) Read More »

Part IV: Trade Mark Concepts #Shapes #Hauck

/ By / Trademark

In this piece we will be dealing with some of the questions that came up in the Hauck case. The facts, once again, are pretty straightforward. Hauck wanted to register the following shape as a trade mark. Stokke opposed it on grounds of the shape being invalid. Went through a series of courts before reaching the Court of Justice. Note that the majority of the analysis comes from the opinion of the Advocate General (AG). The court constantly keeps referring to

Part IV: Trade Mark Concepts #Shapes #Hauck Read More »

Scroll to Top