Author name: Rishabh Mohnot

Topical Highlight Prarthana wrote a post on the imposition of a staggering Rs. 5 crore in costs in Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation v Kishor D Jain. The case concerned the sale of low-quality pipes to a customer intending to use the same in oil plants. This constituted trademark infringement because the pipes were improperly branded with Nippon Steel’s labels. Justice Kathawalla thought it necessary to impose such extraordinary damages because of the use of low-grade material in an

In a guest post, Shalini Bhutani argues that the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act 2001 is likely to have a detrimental impact on the well being of farmers. She highlights the recent string of  lawsuits filed by PepsiCo India, asserting breeder rights in varieties of potatoes against farmers in Gujarat, to caution that the pro-farmer aspects of the legislation could be in serious threat. SpicyIP Events Pankhuri informed us of the 2019 WIPO-UNIGE Summer School that will

Topical Highlight Divij wrote a post on India’s first ‘dynamic’ website blocking injunction, issued by the Delhi High Court. This order allows for the plaintiff to apply for the extension of an injunction to ‘mirror/redirect/alphanumeric’ websites (that contain the same content as the original prohibited website) to the Joint Registrar of the Delhi High Court. Thematic Highlight I wrote a post on the nature of orders and quorum requirements at the IPAB, in light of the orders passed despite continued

Prarthana wrote a post on the recent ‘green order’ passed by Justice Najmi Waziri of the Delhi High Court. While the case concerned the dilution of a trademark used for the sale of a particular diabetes drug, the noteworthy aspect of the judgment is the order that required the respondent to plant 1,40,000 trees in Delhi. Prarthana analyses the law relating to costs, and questions the validity of such an order being passed, given that the trees were not a

In a guest post, Kartik Puttiah discussed the exclusions under Section 3(j) of the Patent Act in light of the Monsanto case. Specifically, he argues that excluding nucleotide acid sequences based on their use in plants is flawed since this does not constitute an evaluation of the subject matter, but rather its industrial application. He argues, further, that a balance between incentivising inventions in biotechnology and protecting farmers may be achieved by creating an exception for farmers under Section 47,