Category Archives: Uncategorized

Others Uncategorized

Delhi HC rules on VATability of trademark licences


On 17 May, a bench of Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma, JJ. of the Delhi HC delivered a common judgement in appeals and petitions filed by McDonald’s India, GlaxoSmithKline Asia, Bikanerwala Foods, and Sagar Ratna Restaurants against revenue authorities. The judgement sheds some much-needed light on the taxation of IP licences (albeit in the twilight of the current tax regime’s life). Facts McDonald’s, Bikanerwala and Sagar Ratna were trademark owners who licensed their brands out through franchise agreements. GSK Asia licensed out…


Read More »
Copyright Uncategorized

Arnab Goswami vs Times Now: Does the Nation Want Nuance?


Arnab Goswami is all over the news! Just like he always wanted to be…except this time he can’t be accused of manufacturing it. Or perhaps not; after all, law suits are a great way of boosting TRP’s! But best of all, this is an IP controversy! So how could SpicyIP not cover it? Here is a quick piece I did for the Newslaundry some days ago reflecting on the various IP infringement charges that have been made against Arnab by…


Read More »
Uncategorized

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 21–August 27)


As always, it’s been a busy week at Spicy IP, folks and it’s time again to reflect on the eventful week for the blog and the IP world. This week’s thematic highlight is Balaji Subramanian’s deep and insightful analysis on the recent Monsanto v Union of India judgement which tries to answer questions relating to taxability of IP licenses as goods or services. Apart from analyzing the judgement itself, he discusses composite contracts and TRUGs, with promises of another post…


Read More »
Uncategorized

TataSky v. YouTube – Fuzzy Signals on the Protection of TPMs


In one of the first cases of its kind in India, YouTube was recently taken to Court by TataSky for hosting videos that taught people how to circumvent the encryption on the latter’s Set-Top-Boxes (STBs). The procedural history of the case is slightly confusing, as I explain below, but the important provisions are Section 66 of the IT Act and Section 65A of the Copyright Act, the latter being the provisions protecting Technological Protection Measures. [Long post ahead] Case History…


Read More »
Uncategorized

Consilience 2016 – and it’s a wrap!


As we had announced on the blog earlier, SpicyIP celebrated its tenth anniversary in May this year with Consilience 2016, conceptualised by SpicyIP and NLS’ Law and Technology Society, supported by the MHRD Chair of IP, NLS. The event was supported by SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre), Texas A&M University, Cellular Association of India, Free Software Movement Karnataka, and Obhaan and Associates. We are finally releasing the Report of the proceedings of the event. As I had mentioned in my…


Read More »
Uncategorized

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 31-August 6)


This week, our topical highlight is Prashant’s excellent post in our series on John Doe orders. He notes that in stark contrast to the Bombay High Court’s streamlining of internet blocking orders, a division bench of the Delhi High Court passed an order on the 29th of July, 2016 that allows for the entire blocking of websites, rather than blocking specific URLs that have been proved to infringe. He summarises the orders that led to this one, and concludes that…


Read More »
Uncategorized

Do online advertising platforms qualify for ‘intermediary liability’ protection?


A couple of weeks ago, The Wire, published an article by Apar Gupta titled ‘The Supreme Court’s Slow March Towards Eroding Online Intermediary Liability’. In his very well-written piece Apar, a well-known lawyer in the media-IT space, laments the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in an ongoing case regarding the display of advertisements related to ‘sex determination’ kits on the internet. The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 prohibits the advertising of any diagnostics which enable a person to determine…


Read More »
Uncategorized

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 25-30)


The topical highlights of the week were Professor Basheer’s follow up piece on the John Doe order for ‘Dishoom’ and Rahul’s analysis of this order. As Professor Basheer had noted in his previous post, Eros was earlier denied a blanket John Doe order and was told that a better researched, duly verified and authenticated affidavit could be taken up for consideration. As a result of this censure, Eros came back with an affidavit, in line with the order and was…


Read More »
Uncategorized

New Plan Scheme for the ‘Modernization and Strengthening of IPAB’ proposed


As reported by LiveLaw, and published by the Press Information Bureau on the 27th of July 2016, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry proposed a Plan Scheme to ‘Modernize and Strengthen’ the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in Chennai. This information was provided by the Minister of State (Independent Charge) in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Nirmala Sitharaman by written reply in the Rajya Sabha. The Scheme sanctions a total cost of Rs. 14.70 crores under the 12th Plan, and…


Read More »
Uncategorized

SpicyIP Weekly Review: July 18th-24th


We have two topical highlights for this week: the first by Prashant and the second by Prof. Basheer. In his post, Prashant reported the Bombay High court’s reaction to Microsoft’s plea for an Anton Piller order. Here, the court lambasted Microsoft for misleading the court and presenting grossly incorrect and exaggerated figures or alleged copyright violations in order to obtain these orders. As per Balu’s update on the matter, the parties have decided to enter into a mutually agreed settlement….


Read More »