Part II: IPAB’s Power to Grant Interim Orders

INTERIM ORDERS Provisions:  Section 95 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 deals with conditions as to making of interim orders, and it reads as follows:“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or any other manner) shall be made on, or in any proceedings relating to, an appeal unless: […]”  Section 92 (2), TM Act, 1999 : ” (2) The Appellate Board shall have, for the purpose of discharging its functions […]

Part II: IPAB’s Power to Grant Interim Orders Read More »

Part I: IPAB’s Power of Review

The IPAB recently decided two important issues – whether it has the power to grant interim reliefs at the application stage and whether it has the power to review its own orders. The Board held that it has both the power to grant interim reliefs as well as the power to review. Both these matters were heard and passed as two separate orders here and here. The members of the Bar acted as intervenors and amici curiae. And as the IPAB put it, they were really ‘friends of the court’. The IPAB also stated that in order to bring uniformity and

Part I: IPAB’s Power of Review Read More »

Google’s partnership with Airtel: The beginning of the end of ‘network neutrality’ in India?

In an interesting turn of events, as pointed out by Sudipto Sircar on the India Law and Technology blog over here, Airtel & Google have partnered to offer a new service where Airtel’s mobile users can access the Google search engine, Gmail and Google+ services for free, up to 1 GB. According to Airtel’s statement to the ET, “…Free Zone powered by Google, will give Airtel mobile customers access to mobile web search and feature phone friendly versions of Gmail and Google+

Google’s partnership with Airtel: The beginning of the end of ‘network neutrality’ in India? Read More »

Calcutta High Court suspects IPRS of indulging in collusive litigation

As we had reported earlier this year, in February, the infamous dispute before the Barasat Civil Court was re-ignited by Asha Studio which filed a fresh lawsuit suing Javed Akhtar, the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) etc. As discussed in that earlier post, the case reached the Calcutta High Court, which had remanded the matter to the lower courts, with the observation that IPRS was required to adhere to the new royalty sharing requirements under the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. I

Calcutta High Court suspects IPRS of indulging in collusive litigation Read More »

IPO publishes draft guideines for examination of computer related inventions: A perspective

Last week the Indian patent office published draft guidelines for examination of computer related patent applications. The draft guidelines can be accessed here.Comments on the same are due by 19th July, 2013 and should be addressed to the deputy controller Mr. B.P.Singh ([email protected])   The proposed guidelines aim to foster consistency and uniformity in patent office practice for examination of computer related inventions. A very welcome development I would say, considering that past patent office practice has been marred with inconsistencies.

IPO publishes draft guideines for examination of computer related inventions: A perspective Read More »

Spicy IP Tidbit: WIPO’s Innovation Division falling victim to Budget-cut?

Image from here A few years back, an innovation division had been set up by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), which was the brainchild of the incumbent Deputy Director General Pooley and was spearheaded by several prominent U.S. patent attorneys. Unlike most of WIPO’s activities, this went relatively unnoticed, devoid of much media exposure or publicity. However, the possible death-knell has perhaps been sounded for this young venture, if one is to believe a recent joint letter sent on July

Spicy IP Tidbit: WIPO’s Innovation Division falling victim to Budget-cut? Read More »

The Marrakesh Miracle: Salient Features of the International Treaty for the Visually Impaired/Print Disabled Persons

Image from here Technology has almost always been light years ahead of the law. We have had technology that could make books available in all sorts of formats for the print disabled/visually impaired, in order to enable them to read, learn and participate in society. However, all these years, the law has inhibited the effective implementation of such technology thereby excluding 285 million visually impaired people (majority of which live in developing countries and of which 47 million live in India)

The Marrakesh Miracle: Salient Features of the International Treaty for the Visually Impaired/Print Disabled Persons Read More »

The proposed Patent Office fee hike – Is it required?

As Rajiv had blogged last month, the DIPP is proposing an across the board fee hike for filing and prosecuting patents at the Patent Office. For a quick recap, the notification by the DIPP proposes an increase of up to 100% in several categories, with a lower fee for those preferring to take the e-filing route. For an office which is supposed to be dealing with cutting-edge technology, the patent office has been dreadfully slow to embrace the joys of

The proposed Patent Office fee hike – Is it required? Read More »

Sun’s challenge to the Glivec patent in the U.S.: A crucial case for Big Pharma’s propaganda machine

As has been reported in several papers now, Sun Pharma Global FZE has sued Novartis on June 7, 2013 before the Federal District Court in the American State of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment that the patent covering Gleevec is invalid. According to media reports this action is a follow up to the ANDA filed by Sun Pharma back in 2007. Shamnad had written about that ANDA back in 2007, in a post which can be accessed over here.

Sun’s challenge to the Glivec patent in the U.S.: A crucial case for Big Pharma’s propaganda machine Read More »

Chargesheet filed against Sundaram Finance Ltd. in Software Copyright Violation case

The Mumbai City Crime Branch filed a chargesheet against Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd., Sundaram Infotech Solution and five of its senior executives recently in a copyright violation case. Kensoft Infotech has accused the Financier of tampering with the source code of the software ‘KEN HFS’ developed by Kensoft in 1994 and using the software in more number of systems than licensed in the agreement. KEN HFS is a housing finance software for use by companies engaged in the

Chargesheet filed against Sundaram Finance Ltd. in Software Copyright Violation case Read More »

Scroll to Top