Some of you may recall “QU-IP”, a series of IP quips we initiated some years ago..to help us see the lighter side of IP and laugh a bit. It’s been a while since the last one, so here goes: This IP witticism is from a talk given by Professor David Vaver, a renowned IP academic, whom I had the great fortune of being supervised by. He is often cited by the Canadian courts and retired some years ago as head of the IP Centre at […]
QU-IP: Prof David Vaver Read More »
The wandering IPAB Delhi was given a ride home by an order of the Delhi HC which directed the setting up of a permanent place in Delhi for the IPAB to carry on its functions. The Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Indian Group) filed a writ petition highlighting the inconvenience caused due to the absence of a permanent office in Delhi. Though the IPAB conducts hearings in five cities: Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Ahmedabad and Chennai, except for Chennai, the government has
No More Nomadic: IPAB Delhi Gets a Permanent Office Read More »
Novartis and Wockhardt appear to be crossing horns with each other at the Delhi High Court as well as the IPAB regarding the popular anti-diabetes drug vildagliptin recently. The proceedings before the High Court was an application for injunction filed by Novartis while the IPAB was hearing a revocation petition filed by Wockhardt. The dispute arose as a result of the permission granted to Wokhardt by the drug regulator to manufacture and sell the drug in May 2013. At the
Novartis obtains injunction against Wockhardt regarding vildagliptin Read More »
SpicyIP Highlight of the Week! Earlier sometime in February, Shamnad and Swaraj, in an Indian Express Op-Ed had written on the problematic GIPC Report 2014 which banished India to the last position in terms of innovation and IP protection offered by it; interestingly enough, Mr. P. Pugatch of the Pugatch Consilium (which conducted the GIPC Report) has in what seems to be a reply to the earlier Op-Ed vociferously emphasized the significance of the contentious report. In an interestingly titled
SpicyIP Weekly Review (17th to 23rd March, 2014) Read More »
We’re happy to announce the second part in NLU Delhi’s IP Colloquium series. Please see their invite below. The event is free to attend. Colloquium on Selected Intellectual Property Issues Dear all, The NLU Delhi Colloquium on Selected Intellectual Property Issues is a panel/ speakers’ series launched with an aim to generate a nuanced dialogue and to promote free-thinking on emerging issues in IP law, policy and theory. The current global & Indian IP landscape is presenting new challenges on
Colloquium on Selected IP issues – II (NLU-D) Read More »
Recently, an Indian Express Op-Ed that Shamnad and I had written discussed the US Chamber of Commerce’s (USCC) severely problematic GIPC report 2014. Around the same time, I had also written a post here on the same report, detailing more of its flaws. Interestingly enough, M. P. Pugatch, of the Pugatch Consilium (which authored the GIPC report), has put forth what seems to be a response, also as an Op-Ed in the Indian Express. Conveniently enough, this gives me a the perfect
Of shadowboxing and strawmen Read More »
A recent CCI order (here) exposes the many dangers of ex parte interim injunctions in relation to IP matters. JCB was held to be abusing its dominant position as it was misusing judicial processes to curb competition. Background Bull Smart Machines Pvt Ltd is a small scale industry engaged in manufacturing low cost loaders, a light construction equipment. Bull Smart filed a complaint before the CCI against JCB, India’s largest manufacturer of construction equipment. It was alleged that JCB was
This week saw some interesting activity on SpicyIP as well as in the world of IP itself. We began with Gopika informing us about the WIPO-WTO colloquium for teachers of IP. The colloquium was opened to lawyers, researchers, university teachers and economists working in the field. She reports that there are twenty-two places in the colloquium for applicants from developing countries and countries with economies in transition whose travel, accommodation and subsistence costs would be covered by the organizers. Applicants
A Belated SpicyIP Weekly Review (10th -16th March, 2014) Read More »
The respondents (Ricard) are world No.2 in the wines and spirits market, having an international presence in around 110 countries. The appellant (Real House Distillery) on the other hand, sell their alcoholic beverages only in the State of Goa. The respondents sell an anise flavoured aperitif (an alcoholic drink taken before a meal to stimulate appetite) under the label/logo “Ricard”. The appellant claims it does not sell anise flavoured aperitifs under the label/logo “Real”. The respondent’s product is priced at
Trademark Infringement of Labels and Logos: Which Colour Do You Chose? Read More »
A Paris Court, in a recent decision reported by EPPatent law blog) denied Ericsson’s request for a preliminary injunction on the ground that an injunction cannot be granted for standard essential patents (SEPs) when the parties to a proposed license agreement agree on geographical and technological scope of the license, but only financial terms remain to be agreed as an injunction would confer an unjustified advantage on the patentee. My thanks to Véron & Associés, for making available online, the translation in English.
SEP licensing – lessons from France Read More »
