And Now, ISRA’s Sanjay Tandon Accuses Us at SpicyIP of Being in the Pockets of Big Music Companies

/ By / Copyright

We received a comment a few days ago on one of my earlier posts, from Sanjay Tandon who claims to be CEO, Co-Founder, Managing Director etc. etc. of the Indian Singers Rights Association (ISRA). I reproduce the comment below: “As expected Spicy IP prefers to be hands in gloves with the Rich Music Companies and not with Artists… giving always a one-sided story… It was prompt to report this… but did not have the courtesy to report on the DISMISSAL […]

And Now, ISRA’s Sanjay Tandon Accuses Us at SpicyIP of Being in the Pockets of Big Music Companies Read More »

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

/ By / Copyright

In the Part I of this two-part guest post, Himanshu had given a brief background about the parties involved and the subject-matter of the case followed by the discussion on the prima facie validity of the possible defenses taken by Defendant no.1, ZemTV. In Part II of the post below, he analyses the case further. DISHTV vs. TVAddons: A Prognosis of Achievable Outcomes – Part II Himanshu Arora TVADDONS.ORG – Indirect copyright infringement – TVaddons has been alleged to be

DishTV vs. TVAddons: A Prognosis of Achievable Outcomes – Part II Read More »

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

/ By / Copyright

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.

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

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

/ By / Copyright

[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.

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

And the Wind Invented the Windmill

/ By / Innovation, Others, Patent

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

And the Wind Invented the Windmill Read More »

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

/ By / Copyright

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

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 Read More »

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

/ By / Copyright, Overlaps in IP

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

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 Read More »

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

/ By / Copyright

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.

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

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 4 – 10)

/ By / Others

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

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 4 – 10) Read More »

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

/ By / Patent

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

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

Scroll to Top