Author name: Ritvik M Kulkarni

Ritvik Kulkarni is a final year student at ILS Law College, Pune. He is the Student Coordinator of the ILS Intellectual Property Rights Cell and Student Editor at the ILS Abhivyakti Law Journal since 2014-15. Ritvik first learnt of IP while preparing for his first moot; and has been regularly taking his weekly IP fix ever since. Additionally, he takes interest in learning the law and practice of domestic and international dispute settlement. Speaking of disputes, he's an ardent follower and jabra fan of Game of Thrones. You can get in touch with him at [email protected]; and dont worry he loves F.R.I.E.N.D.S too.

Domino Effect: Teva withdraws patent application in India after USPTO invalidates its patent in blockbuster drug COPAXONE

/ By / Drug Regulation, Patent

In a groundbreaking development, Israeli behemoth Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Teva) has suffered a third consecutive blow after the US Patent Office (USPTO) invalidated its third patent [U.S. Patent No. 8,969,302] for COPAXONE (Glatiramer Acetate) on September 1, 2016. According to The Financial Express, the USPTO upheld a Mylan’s challenge in an Inter-partes Review (IPR) and found that all claims in the said COPAXONE patent were un-patentable. The 40mg version of COPAXONE is a $4 billion blockbuster injectable drug used […]

Domino Effect: Teva withdraws patent application in India after USPTO invalidates its patent in blockbuster drug COPAXONE Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 28 – September 3)

/ By / Others

We have two topical highlights this week: Inika’s report on Madras HC’s latest John Doe order and Pankhuri’s brilliant report on Cipla’s withdrawal of its revocation application for Novartis’ Onbrez. In the first, Inika reported the Madras HC’s unfortunate order to block 830 websites under a ‘John Doe’ injunction for ‘A Flying Jatt’. She notes that the Court has also agreed to block offline mediums such as 5 cable TV operators and 8 unknown persons. This injunction order will be

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 28 – September 3) Read More »

Delhi High Court reinforces jurisdictional importance of cause of action; lambasts Single Judge for dissenting with division bench in Ultrahome

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

In Ultrahome Constructions v. Purushottam, a division bench of the Delhi High Court interpreted IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia to hold that the plaintiff will be constrained to sue at the place of its subordinate office if the cause of action arises there and not at the place of its principal office. The Delhi HC has essentially upheld the importance of the existence of the cause of action while determining jurisdiction in copyright and trademark litigation. Now, the Delhi HC has

Delhi High Court reinforces jurisdictional importance of cause of action; lambasts Single Judge for dissenting with division bench in Ultrahome Read More »

Delhi High Court: Plaintiff must sue at principal office when cause of action absent from subordinate office

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

In my previous post (here and here), I analyzed the jurisdictional position of IP litigation after the SC’s decision in IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia. I noted there that a division bench (DB) of the Delhi High Court has interpreted Dalia in Ultrahome Constructions v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey; wherein the Delhi HC ruled that the plaintiff cannot sue at the place of its registered office when it also has a subordinate office where the cause of action has also arisen. The Delhi HC

Delhi High Court: Plaintiff must sue at principal office when cause of action absent from subordinate office Read More »

Where do I Carry on Business?: The Jurisdictional Conundrum post IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (Part II)

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

Delhi High Court’s Interpretation of Dalia In Ultrahome Constructions v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, a Division Bench of the Delhi HC had an opportunity to interpret IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia.  The Plaintiff was the owner and used the mark “AMRAPALI” inter alia in relation to hotels. It had its registered office in Delhi. The Defendant was using the impugned mark “AMBAPALI GREEN” in Deogarh (Jharkhand), where the Plaintiff also operating a hotel under its AMRAPALI trademark. The Plaintiff brought a suit

Where do I Carry on Business?: The Jurisdictional Conundrum post IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (Part II) Read More »

Where do I Carry on Business?: The Jurisdictional Conundrum post IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (Part I)

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

In a previous post, I covered the Bombay HC’s decision on jurisdiction in copyright and trademark litigation in India. As we saw there, the crux of the discussion comprised an analysis of where a person can be said to be “carrying on business” and especially if that place can be a corporate plaintiff’s subordinate office as opposed to its head office. In Manugraph India Limited V. Simarq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, the Bombay HC answers in the negative and

Where do I Carry on Business?: The Jurisdictional Conundrum post IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (Part I) Read More »

Searching for Situs: Delhi High Court holds IP transfer by foreign based entity not taxable in India

/ By / Trademark

A division bench (DB) of the Delhi High Court held that income accruing from the transfer of IP by a foreign based entity cannot be subject to income tax in India.  DB resolved an 8-year old dispute and finally settled that the situs of intangible capital assets, such as IP, is deemed to be the same as the situs of its owner. This judgment is available here, and the impugned order passed by the Authority on Advance Rulings (AAR) is

Searching for Situs: Delhi High Court holds IP transfer by foreign based entity not taxable in India Read More »

SpicyIP Events: 11th Prof. S. P. Sathe National Moot Court Competition,  ILS Law College, Pune (23rd to 25th September)

/ By / Event

ILS Law College, Pune has released the problem for the 11th installment of its Prof. S. P. Sathe National Moot Court Competition (Moot). The Moot is slated to be held between 23rd and 25th September 2016. This year’s Moot Problem deals with a few novel and thought-provoking principles in the field of intellectual property law. The complete compendium, which consists of the Moot Problem and Moot Rules, is available here. Exhaustive details, including a list of dates to etch in your

SpicyIP Events: 11th Prof. S. P. Sathe National Moot Court Competition,  ILS Law College, Pune (23rd to 25th September) Read More »

Mischief Managed(?): Bombay High Court upholds Plaintiff’s privilege to sue in its place of registered office sans cause of action

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

The Bombay High Court has decided in a recent judgment that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on jurisdiction in IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia cannot be read in such a way as to curtail the plaintiff’s privilege to pursue a suit in the area where the plaintiff has its registered office. Justice Gautam Patel has observed that this rule is applicable even when the plaintiff has a subordinate office in the place where the defendant is carrying on business and where

Mischief Managed(?): Bombay High Court upholds Plaintiff’s privilege to sue in its place of registered office sans cause of action Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review: July 11th to 17th

/ By / Others

We have two amazing posts making this week’s highlights: the first by our guest Harshavardhan Ganesan and the other by Balaji Subramanian. For the first highlight, Harsha brought us his insightful take over the blossoming of an unfortunate relationship between tragedies and trademark. He starts off with a brief account of the opportunistic attempts to trademark BREXIT for beer and laments over similar attempts in relation to terms, such as JE SUIS CHARLIE, which are associated with tragic events. Similarly, he also

SpicyIP Weekly Review: July 11th to 17th Read More »

Scroll to Top