Author name: Rishabh Mohnot

(This post has been authored by Bhavik Shukla, a 5th year student at NLIU, Bhopal) Topical Highlight Last week, Eashan wrote a post on the judgment of the Delhi HC in Amazon Seller Services v. Amway India Enterprises. Through this judgment, the Court set aside the Single Judge’s order which had restrained various e-commerce platforms from selling products of ‘direct selling’ companies without their consent. In the post, he critically discusses the appellate court’s approach in reversing the findings of

[This post has been authored by Bhavik Shukla, a 5th year student at NLIU, Bhopal] Topical Highlight Adarsh wrote a post on the recent order of the Supreme Court of India in Genetech Inc v Drug Controller General of India. Through this order, the Supreme Court set aside the interim order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and restored the earlier order of the Single Judge. He notes that in restoring the earlier order, the Court relied

Topical Highlight Divij wrote a post on a recent order of the Supreme Court in Google India v Visakha Industries. Through this order, the Supreme Court denied to quash defamation proceedings against Google for its failure to expeditiously remove allegedly defamatory material from its ‘Google Group’ service. Divij notes that this decision is important for online intermediaries operating in India, as it holds that online intermediaries may be liable as a ‘publisher’ in criminal defamation proceedings under the Indian Penal

Topical Highlight Recently, the Delhi HC set aside two interim injunction orders passed against Natco. In a post co-authored by Pankhuri Agarwal and Bhavik Shukla, these orders were identified as a welcome restoration of the three-pronged test for the grant of interim injunctions in India. The earlier orders of Justice Endlaw had done away with the three-pronged test in light of the interests of the patentee. However, the authors note that the three-pronged test must be retained to ensure that

Topical Highlight Prashant wrote a post on an order passed by the Delhi HC concerning the marketing of a biosimilar of the breast cancer drug Herceptin by Reliance Life Sciences. Genentech, which owned the erstwhile patent for Herceptin, filed a suit against Reliance claiming that their drug did not comply with Guidelines for Biosimilars and hence could not claim to be as efficacious as the drug sold under the Herceptin brand. In this appeal, the Delhi HC overturned the decision

Thematic Highlight  In her first submission, fellowship applicant Akanshha Agrawal wrote on the free speech, morality and trademark law debate in light of the recent Iancu v Brunetti decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. She discussed the implications of the decision to strike down the ground of immorality to refuse trademark registration, including concerns overuse of racial slurs in trademarks. She also noted the use of ‘Urban Dictionary’ as evidence in the case. In the next part

In a guest post, Karan Dhalla argues that Tips Industries v Wynk Music, which held that the statutory licensing scheme under Section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, was wrongly decided for three reasons. First, he suggests that Section 31D does not discriminate between different mediums of broadcast because both Section 31D(1) and Section 2(dd) are clear and unambiguous, and sweeping in their scope. Second, he posits that Section 31D(1) is the operative portion of the provision, and the remaining