SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 13- February 19)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Last week on the blog we featured posts with nuanced discussions on burning issues surrounding patents, trademarks, and copyright. Here are the quick summaries of the 7 blog posts, along with 12 case summaries and other IP developments. Important IP cases that we’re missing out on? Especially from other High Courts? Please let us know so we can include them!   Highlights of the Week SpicyIP Tidbit: Madras High Court Directs the State Government to Issue a Notification for Establishing […]

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 13- February 19) Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Madras High Court Directs the State Government to Issue a Notification for Establishing Intellectual Property Division

/ By / Others

In a recent writ petition filed by M/s.Galatea Limited regarding its pending case before IPAB, Chennai to be heard before the Madras High Court (MHC), the court directed the State Government to issue notification for the inauguration of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD). The court noted that “litigants intending to pursue disputes pertaining to intellectual property are left remediless for a long time after the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.” Respondent’s counsel argued that the Registrar General has

SpicyIP Tidbit: Madras High Court Directs the State Government to Issue a Notification for Establishing Intellectual Property Division Read More »

Numeral Marks, Passing off, Trademark Infringement – Delhi High Court’s All-in-One Approach? 

/ By / Trademark

Imagine a world where all numbers from 0 to 9 and their infinite permutations and combinations can be trademarked. In this unreal realm, Pinku, the owner of “89” can injunct Minku for using “82”, arguing that “8” is common in both of them. Now extend this logic to similar circumstances, such as 23 vs 28, 31 vs 91, 12 vs 21 and so on. Whoever uses a number first, gets to stop the next user! Now … what if you

Numeral Marks, Passing off, Trademark Infringement – Delhi High Court’s All-in-One Approach?  Read More »

What if? Discussing the Elsevier Ltd. And Ors v Alexandra Elbakyan and Ors in the Multiverse of Substantive Copyright Arguments

/ By / Copyright

In an earlier post, Swaraj highlighted that despite the Sci-hub case going on for the past 2 years (see here, here, here, here  and here for previous posts on this), there has hardly been any discussion by the court on the substantive issues. SpicyIP intern Tanvi Agarwal brings us up to date on the last two orders (see here and here) regarding amendments that the defendants wanted in the written statement, and the dismissal of the application to reject the plaint.

What if? Discussing the Elsevier Ltd. And Ors v Alexandra Elbakyan and Ors in the Multiverse of Substantive Copyright Arguments Read More »

Sci-Hub and Public Libraries: Legal Deposit under The Delivery of Books and Newspaper (Public Libraries) Act 1954

/ By / Copyright

The on-going Sci-hub/libgen litigation, which initially drew a lot of hullabaloo, has been going on for a bit over 2 years now, with little to no movement on any substantive issues. Instead, it has mostly been adjournments and procedural issues. However, regardless of the outcome of the case itself, there seems to have been very little attention to why this situation has arisen in the first place. Some basic searching about the case online will throw up several articles about

Sci-Hub and Public Libraries: Legal Deposit under The Delivery of Books and Newspaper (Public Libraries) Act 1954 Read More »

Interplay Between Sections 124, 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: The Fault in Our Interpretations

/ By / Trademark

Recently, the Delhi High Court passed an interesting order in Anubhav Jain v. Satish Kumar Jain, holding that the rights u/s 57 of the Trademarks Act to seek rectification of the register, is independent of the rights u/s 124 which allows the defendant to seek a stay over the infringement proceedings when the validity of the trademark is raised as a defence. This interplay was the point of a previous controversy, which the Supreme Court addressed in Patel Field Marshall

Interplay Between Sections 124, 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: The Fault in Our Interpretations Read More »

Claim Amendments u/s 59(1): Confusingly Evolving Landscape in India- Part II

/ By / Patent

In Part I of this 2-part post, Amit Tailor discussed the key aspects of the Delhi High Court’s order in Allergan Inc. v. the Controller of Patents. In continuation to that discussion, he analyzes the order from the lens of previous decisions by Delhi High Court and makes key observations regarding public interest. Claim Amendments u/s 59(1): Confusingly Evolving Landscape in India- Part II Amit Tailor Evolving ‘Amendments’ in India under Nippon, Boehringer & Allegan Divergent Views on Similar Facts

Claim Amendments u/s 59(1): Confusingly Evolving Landscape in India- Part II Read More »

Claim Amendments u/s 59(1): Confusingly Evolving Landscape in India- Part I

/ By / Patent

Recently, Delhi High Court in Allergan Inc. v. the Controller of Patents set aside the order of the Indian Patent Office, and allowed certain claim amendments u/s 59(1). In this 2 part guest post, Amit Tailor discusses the Allergan order in part 1 and then assesses it in light of the previous decisions on the similar issue of claim amendments. Amit is a postgraduate in Pharmaceutical Sciences from National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) and

Claim Amendments u/s 59(1): Confusingly Evolving Landscape in India- Part I Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 6- February 12)

/ By / Copyright, Design, Patent, Trademark

After another busy week here at SpicyIP, here are the quick summaries of the 5 blogposts that were put up, along with 15 case summaries and other national and international IP developments for you. Important IP cases that we’re missing out on? Especially from other High Courts? Please let us know so we can include them!   Highlights of the Week The Copyright Quandary regarding the Delhi High Court Rules on Live-streaming of Court Proceedings Recently Delhi High Court came

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 6- February 12) Read More »

Honesty as a Defense vis-à-vis Trademark Infringements: Principle or Provision?

/ By / Others, Trademark

Our readers may be aware of Section 12 in the Trademark Act 1999 which allows the registration of identical or similar trademarks by more than one proprietor in case of honest concurrent use of some special circumstances. A few months ago, the provision was in the headlines saying that honest concurrent use (“HCU”) is not a defence to a trademark infringement claim. It came from the Delhi High Court’s (DHC) order in Kei Industries v Raman Kwatra (KEI-1), which came

Honesty as a Defense vis-à-vis Trademark Infringements: Principle or Provision? Read More »

Scroll to Top