Copyright

DishTV vs. TVAddons: A Prognosis of Achievable Outcomes – Part I


We are pleased to bring to you a two-part guest post by Himanshu Arora. Himanshu is an IP lawyer practicing at the High Courts of Delhi and Punjab & Haryana and the District Courts at Amritsar. In this two-part post he analyses the possible outcomes in an ongoing copyright dispute in the US between DishTV on one hand and ZemTV and TVAddons on the other. In Part III of the post he’ll will be analysing this dispute under the Indian law….


Read More »
Copyright

Delhi High Court on Interim Licence under Section 31D of Copyright Act, 1957


[I had covered the developments here and here.] As stated earlier, Saregama India Ltd and Super Casettes Industries Pvt Ltd, before the Delhi High Court, challenged the order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights, granting an interim statutory license under Section 31D(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 in favour of M/S Kuku & Koyal Internet Pvt. Ltd. The Saregama India Ltd was represented by Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Siddharth Chopra and Mr. Munish Mehra….


Read More »
Innovation Others Patent

And the Wind Invented the Windmill


We are pleased to bring to you a guest post by Achille Forler, Advisor to the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS). After graduating in Graphic Arts, Achille studied Indian Culture (M.A.) and Sanskrit (Ph.D.). He has 35 years of experience in the creative industries. Founder-director of a cultural centre in the 1980s, he was Attaché for Cultural Industries in the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1990-94). He co-organised the first Asia-Europe Symposium on Cultural Industries, November 1995 in Goa. Achille…


Read More »
Copyright

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 II


In this post, I shall chronologically set out the updates pertaining to Section 31D: I. In Inderjit Singh & Anr v/s Union of India & ors [CWP- 21945/2016], the Punjab & Haryana High Court had vide order dated 21st October 2016 directed as follows: “the Registrar of Copyright Office-respondent No.3 is directed that if the petitioners approach him by moving an appropriate representation within a period of four weeks from today, he shall consider and decide the same at an…


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 »
Copyright

Novex Muzzled by Bombay High Court in a Recent Threats Action by Gulraj Hotels


In a recent order, dated February 9, 2019; Justice S.J. Kathawalla has restrained Novex Communications from taking any coercive action against Gulraj Hotel which filed a threats action under Section 60 of the Copyright Act after receiving a legal notice from Novex. (COMIP (L) No. 163 of 2018). The plaintiff in this case was represented by a team from the law firm Wadia Ghandy consisting of Sameer Pandit, Ramesh Soni and Madhupreetha Elango and led by Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar….


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 4 – 10)


We’ve had quite an eventful week at the blog – Prof. Basheer brought us the thematic highlights of this week with updates on the proceedings of the Patent Working PIL instituted by him before the Delhi HC: To begin with, Prof. Basheer provided us a summary of the proceedings before the Court on the 5th of February – noting that his counsels argued for stricter sanctions for errant patentees who refused to comply with filing requirements. He notes that they…


Read More »
Patent

Advocates v. Patent Agents: A new case before the Madras High Court


The ToI recently reported that Madras based advocate Sanjay Gandhi has sued the Controller General of Patents before the Madras High on the grounds despite being “entitled to appear before the statutory body [Patent Office] and advance arguments in his capacity as a qualified advocate, he was disallowed from doing so.” Advocates qualified under the Advocates Act, 1961 have been claiming for some time that they are entitled to practice before the Patent Office without qualifying as a patent agent…


Read More »
Trademark

Delhi HC Vacates Ex-Parte Interim Injunction After Seven Years


Last month, the Delhi High Court through Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva vacated an ad-interim injunction granted in favour of ‘Three-N-Products’ (hereinafter, plaintiff) against two defendants back in March, 2011. The case involved the alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark “AYUR” registered in Class 24 & 25 for goods such as bedcovers, textiles, shoes, boots, etc. The plaintiffs took issue with the mark “AYURVASTRA” used by the defendants in respect of goods such as sarees, dress materials, beds, etc. The facts are…


Read More »
Patent

Dial B For “Bonafide” Patent Working: The Natco Irony


          Did you ever think that Natco would oppose patent working disclosure norms? After all, they benefitted from it when they applied for India’s first compulsory license. And used Bayer’s patent working information (Form 27 filings) to demonstrate that Bayer was not meeting the reasonable requirements of the public through their patented anti-cancer drug, Nexavar. Based on this assertion, they were granted the compulsory license and began selling their version of Nexavar at a much cheaper…


Read More »