Category Archives: Overlaps in IP

Designs Overlaps in IP Trademark

Passing Off and Design Infringement: The Conflict


A few days ago, I had discussed a Bombay HC Order involving Cello and Modware. Justice Patel had provided relief to Cello on account of Cello successfully establishing, prima facie, both passing off and design infringement. Prashant, after reading the piece, put forth the following query: “If the design of the bottle is acting as an indicator of source, doesn’t it follow that it can be registered as a trademark which means it is incapable of being registered as design because it falls…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP

Part III: Qualcomm v. ACIT #Technology Supplement (CDMA)


Here I will be discussing the CDMA (‘Code Division Multiple Access’) tech. and its link with India. As legal analysts, we only need to understand that the link between a technology and its relation with the tax jurisdiction is relevant in determining tax liability. This has been discussed in detail in Part I (A&B). In other words, this piece is more of a supplementary piece for the enthusiastic reader who wishes to understand the underlying tech. to a greater depth…


Read More »
Copyright Overlaps in IP

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


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…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent

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


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…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent

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


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…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent Plant Variety Protection

The Seed(y) Saga: Who Makes Law in India?


Well, if Prabhakar Rao’s response to my op-ed in the Hindu is anything to go by, it would appear that is the executive (govt) that makes law in India. Never mind that the constitution says otherwise; and vests this power with our Parliament! Mr Rao clearly has his own constitutional handbook, drawing from which he notes: “As clarified by the government in the IPR Policy 2016, only the PPVFR Act, 2001 governs IP rights for transgenic varieties.” Firstly, whatever be…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent Trademark

Three Birds, One Stone: Inphase Power Technologies v. ABB India


In a fascinating case before the Karnataka High Court: Inphase Power Technologies v. ABB India (read the order here), Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar passed an order confirming the misappropriation of confidential information, patent infringement, and hold your breath – trademark infringement as well! Not to be left out, there were arguments advanced of alleged copyright infringement too, which were ultimately not taken up by the Court. This case is significant due to the parties involved, as there is an ongoing…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent Plant Variety Protection

The NSAI’s new IP strategy in its dispute with Monsanto


The National Seed Association of India (NSAI), comprising mostly of Indian seed companies, has published on its website a series of documents outlining its IP strategy in its dispute with Monsanto. As explained in our earlier posts available over here, here and here, some of the biggest Indian seed companies like Nuziveedu (whose chairman heads NSAI) are engaged in a high stakes battle with Monsanto over the technology licensing agreements between both parties. The history of this dispute can be…


Read More »
Competition Law Overlaps in IP Patent

My views on Session on ‘Open Standards’ in SpicyIP Consilience, 2016


 In the recently concluded SpicyIP Consilience 2016 Conference at NLS, we had an interesting session on Open Standards, FRAND and Royalty-Free models (pertaining to licensing of Standard Essential Patents). Mr. Rajiv Choudhary, Prof. Yogesh Pai, Mr. Navneet Hariharan and Prof. Natasha Nayak spoke in this session. The session discussed some interesting issues pertaining to: a) creation of value by royalty free standards; b) working of FRAND; c) creation of value by standards; and d) royalty-free model vis-a-vis FRAND model. If you…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Trademark

Countering the Menace of Counterfeits


In a development that brings to light some rather interesting issues, the Indian Government has accused Chinese companies of counterfeiting goods legitimately manufactured in India. Noting that large Indian brands such as Godrej, Dabur and Raymond have been at the receiving end of this large-scale counterfeiting, the Government has reportedly told Parliament that it has raised this issue with the appropriate agencies in China. As this article notes, this intervention could not have come at a better time, in light…


Read More »