This week on SpicyIP… Mathews wrote a post on the recent Madras HC decision in Kajal Aggarwal v. VVD & Sons. The court held that a producer can exploit a cinematograph film for the statutorily sanctioned 60 years despite a contract to the contrary. Mathews argues that a wiser course of argumentation for the appellants may have been to rely on IP jurisprudence, arguing that reducing the time-period of the copyright to 1 year would improve access for the public,…

I had written a post on the latest Mahindra-Fiat dispute. The US International Trade Commission has instituted an investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act against Mahindra on the basis of Fiat’s complaint. Fiat alleges that its trademark in the grills of the “Jeep” has been infringed by Mahindra’s “ROXOR”. In my post, I briefly summarise similar disputes which have occurred in the past between Fiat and its rival companies (including Mahindra) and reflect upon Fiat’s “protectiveness” about its grills….

Thematic Highlight In his guest post, Adarsh Ramanujan argued that there is a hidden indictment of the Aadhar Act in the Justice Sri Krishna Committee Report and its proposal for the Personal Data Protection Bill 2018. He argues that the proposal’s suggestions to make UIDAI’s functioning subject to the proposed Bill, mandating an online-offline verification split and amend Section 29 of the Aadhar Act all indicate that the Report identifies Aadhar as a problem in the data protection regime. Topical…

Thematic Highlight  In Prashant’s latest update on the bedaquiline  controversy, he discusses about how The Hindu’s science editor pitched for increasing access to bedaquiline to treat MDR-TB. In response to this, he reiterates his argument in earlier posts: Since Phase III trials for the drug has not been conducted yet, regulatory approval for the same should not be given. In the latter part of his post, he points out that journalists have not addressed the government’s scandalous consent forms for providing…

Thematic Highlight In her guest post, Dr. Sunanda Bharti argues that Hall of Nations the Hall of Nations structure is a work of architecture, and therefore, qualifies for protection under the Copyright Act, 1957. She posits that even though the economic rights with respect to the structure vest with the Government, moral rights under Section 57 still remain with the artist who created the work. The destruction, therefore, violated these rights. Topical Highlight Prashant wrote about the most recent attempt…