Category Archives: Overlaps in IP

Designs Overlaps in IP Trademark

Delhi HC Deals with Yet Another Design-Trademark Overlap!


IP overlaps take place when multiple overlapping IP rights vest in an owner for a single subject matter. These overlaps have given way to numerous debates regarding over-protection, policy implications, statutory interpretation  and many more issues. (To get a better understanding of the same, do refer to Prof. Basheer’s chapter in Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights.) Design-trademark overlaps, in particular, have had an interesting history in Indian litigation. A recent decision of the Delhi HC yet again brings these overlaps to the fore. In…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP

Foreign IP Law Firms Defying SC Ruling?


The issue of foreign law firms allegedly defying SC instructions in their practice in India was recently brought into attention by a complaint filed by Sumit Sinha, an advocate on record. The complaint was filed before the Bar Council of India, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and other authorities. It identified certain foreign law firms namely Zacco, Abu Ghazaleh, Mirandah Asia, United GIPS, Clydes and Anderson Global. Notably, all these firms have some sort of local presence in India…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent

India’s IPR Regime Looks to Hi-Tech to Improve Administration – From Video Conferencing to AI and Blockchain


The IPR administrative offices form the backbone of the legal system of India’s IP regimes. The efficacy of the law depends, to a large extent, on how these offices manage their administrative tasks, which includes substantive evaluation of claims over IP, as well as tasks of effectively maintaining registries and public records. We have written, in the past, about many worrying aspects of their administration, such as non-transparent functioning of the Copyright Office, or the skewed incentives system within the…


Read More »
Copyright Overlaps in IP Patent Trademark

Obscenity and Morality under IP Law


  Obscenity under  the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) is a relic of India’s colonial past. Though the need for such a provision is often subject to debate, it is indisputable that the judiciary’s interpretation of this provision has been often been anachronistic in past instances. The judiciary has, no doubt, evolved from the infamous Hicklin Test (tendency of the impugned material to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences) to the contemporary community standards (testing the impugned material against contemporary…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent

India Breaks the Patents-Customs Linkage a Bit!


The IP-customs linkage has always been a contentious one. Particularly so in the case of patents, an area of law which is difficult enough to decipher for trained judges, much less customs officials (more often than not generalist bureaucrats appointed by the Government of India). Given this problematic linkage, it is heartening to note that vide a recent notification dated 22nd June, 2018, issued by the Central Government, the linkage between patents and customs has effectively been broken (a bit)….


Read More »
Copyright Overlaps in IP

Article 13 of the Controversial EU Copyright Directive


The Internet as you know and love may change. The vote’s out! On 20th June, 2018, the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee (JURI) voted to approve amendments to Articles 11 and 13 of the EU Copyright Directive in the Digital Single Market. These Articles have drawn the ire of many since they require internet platforms to monitor copyrighted material uploaded on their platforms and to pay fees to news companies before linking their content. In this post, I’ll be solely…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent Plant Variety Protection

Can Monsanto’s Invention be Protected As a Plant Variety and Can It Seek Benefit-Sharing From Nuziveedu?


One of the central planks of Nuziveedu’s defense in its ongoing litigation against Monsanto, that we’ve blogged about over here and here, is its claim that Monsanto’s invention is nothing but a “transgenic plant” with increased insect resistance and that the same could be protected as a “plant variety” under the Plant Variety Protection & Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (PVPFRA). As discussed earlier, this characterization of Monsanto’s claim may not be accurate but it seems to have been accepted by…


Read More »
Others Overlaps in IP

World IP Day, 2018: Celebrating Women in IP


Every year, the 26th of April is celebrated as the World IP Day, to promote the role of IP in encouraging innovation and creativity. Pursuant to this goal, WIPO marks the occasion each year, with a ‘novel’ theme. This year, the World IP day campaign “celebrates the brilliance, ingenuity, curiosity and courage of the women who are driving change in our world and shaping our common future.”   Keeping very much with this theme, we are pleased to commemorate this year’s…


Read More »
Overlaps in IP Patent Plant Variety Protection

Delhi High Court’s Judgment in Monsanto v. Nuziveedu Delivers a Deadly Blow to the Agro-biotech Industry


A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently pronounced its judgment in the long running litigation between Monsanto and Nuziveedu. The present judgment was delivered in cross appeals filed by both parties against the order of a single judge of the Delhi High Court that was delivered last year. To describe the judgment briefly, the court has delivered a knock-out punch to Monsanto, by declaring invalid its patent for Bt. Technology because Section 3(j) of the Patents Act prohibited…


Read More »
Copyright Overlaps in IP

When Settled Canons of Law and Law of Precedents Go for a Toss: Issue of Interim Licence under Section 31D of Copyright Act, 1957 by Registrar of Copyrights – Part I


India is a Constitutional democracy. The principles of Constitutionalism pervade the Indian polity. Constitutionalism encompasses rule of law, independence of judiciary and separation of powers; the sacrosanct principles meant to ensure fairness and reasonableness in justice delivery system. Set in this background, the Judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21st October 2016 and 14 March 2017 directing the Copyright Registrar to exercise powers under Section 31D of Copyright Act, 1957 are blatantly erroneous. In this post, I…


Read More »