Guest Post: A quick update on Viacom v. YouTube

/ By / Uncategorized

On April 18, 2013 a U.S. District Court delivered Google yet another victory in its long running litigation against Viacom over the alleged copyright infringement caused by You-Tube. We have below for our readers an excellent summary of the judgement by Chaitanya from the Stanford Law School, who has previously blogged for us over here and here.  A quick update on Viacom v. YouTube by Chaitanya Ramachandran Image from here In what is being hailed an a victory for operators […]

Guest Post: A quick update on Viacom v. YouTube Read More »

Guest post: Avoiding Open Source Surprises When Buying Proprietary Software

/ By / Uncategorized

We’re happy to bring to our readers a brief note by Protecode on protecting against the risks of Open Source Software being incorporated in purchased proprietary software without the knowledge of the buyer.  A bit about the authors: Mahshad Koohgoli, CEO of Protecode, has more than 25 years of experience in the technology industry. Previously, he was founder and CEO of Nimcat Networks (acquired by Avaya in 2005) and founder of Spacebridge Networks and Lantern Communications Canada. Mahshad has a BSc

Guest post: Avoiding Open Source Surprises When Buying Proprietary Software Read More »

Guest Post: The IPKat’s "despair" with the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Novartis-Glivec case

/ By / Uncategorized

Last week, I read this highly critical post by Darren Smyth, on the fantastic IPKat blog, where he takes apart  some of the analysis in the Supreme Court’s judgement denying Novartis a patent for Glivec. Darren’s analysis had very accurately identified a significant flaw in the judgement and let’s just say that he doesn’t mince his words when he takes to the pen or the keyboard. Since we have had almost no critical commentary on the judgement so far, I

Guest Post: The IPKat’s "despair" with the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Novartis-Glivec case Read More »

Comparative Advertising: Delhi HC (SAFFOLA v. FORTUNE)

/ By / Comparative Advertising, Trademark

Image from here The plaintiff and defendant both sell cooking oil under the brand names SAFFOLA and FORTUNE respectively. SAFFOLA oil contains Refined Rice Bran Oil (RBO) and other oils. FORTUNE oil is claimed to be composed only of RBO. The plaintiff, Marico Ltd., filed two suits for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from broadcasting, printing and publishing advertisements of its product- FORTUNE that allegedly disparaged the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s product- SAFFOLA. The plaintiff’s primary grievance was

Comparative Advertising: Delhi HC (SAFFOLA v. FORTUNE) Read More »

SpicyIP Events: Registrations for Consilience 2013 are now open

/ By / Uncategorized

We had reported about Consilience, a conference organized by the Law and Technology Committee of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore the previous month. The following information comes to us from the Law and Technology Committee of NLSIU. The Law and Technology Committee of NLSIU, which is a student committee actively engaged in promoting awareness in the field of Technology Law, is organizing a conference on ‘Data Protection and Cyber Security in India’ on 25th and 26th of

SpicyIP Events: Registrations for Consilience 2013 are now open Read More »

IPAB upholds validity of Bajaj Auto’s patent in revocation proceedings brought by LML

/ By / Patent

In a major boost to Bajaj Auto Ltd. (“Bajaj”), the IPAB in a recent decision, upheld Bajaj’s patent IN189097 (‘097 patent) relating to an intake system for two-stroke engines in two wheelers with a monocoque chassis – in a revocation proceedings brought in by LML Ltd. (“LML”).  Bajaj was represented by – M.K. Chakrabarti and LML was represented by – Prathiba Singh. Around the time the ‘ 097 patent issued, Bajaj sent a cease and desist notice to LML, pursuant to which LML

IPAB upholds validity of Bajaj Auto’s patent in revocation proceedings brought by LML Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Update on Zanjeer and Bombay Talkies

/ By / Copyright

Image from here The copyright dispute between authors Salim Khan/Javed Akhtar and producers Sumeet/Puneet Mehra and Ors. (defendants) over the remake of Zanjeer progresses with the defendants giving an undertaking to the Bombay High Court, on May 3, 2013, stating that the remade Zanjeer will not be released before 30/6/13.  Meanwhile, as reported here, another scriptwriter appealed to the Bombay High Court claiming that one of the directors of the film Bombay Talkies had stolen his story. He asked the

SpicyIP Tidbit: Update on Zanjeer and Bombay Talkies Read More »

The Ericsson-Micromax patent litigation: Where is India’s first FRAND litigation headed?

/ By / Uncategorized

As our readers may be aware, Ericsson sued Micromax Informatics Ltd. and Mercury Electronics Ltd., a few months ago for allegedly infringing 8 of its telecom patents for a range of wireless technologies, including 3G, AMR and Edge. The Delhi High Court had granted an ex-parte interim injunction on the very first day even before Micromax could receive a legal notice that it had been sued. That order can be accessed over here. Shouvik had blogged about it over here

The Ericsson-Micromax patent litigation: Where is India’s first FRAND litigation headed? Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 2013, Week 1)

/ By / Uncategorized

SpicyIP is delighted to announce a new section on ‘Social Innovations’ focusing on innovations which are ‘development oriented or specifically directed at social causes’. Swaraj brought our attention to world’s first Braille smartphone developed by an Indian company, Kriyate Design Solutions. The phone enables visually impaired to send and receive text message, tactile maps, scan and convert external text to braille and even represent our surroundings in braille! The project is a brainchild of Sumit Dagar, a graduate from National

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 2013, Week 1) Read More »

The Jaguar Trademark Conundrum

/ By / Trademark

Recently, the IPAB issued an order in a trademark dispute in favour of England’s Jaguar Cars and against the Swiss company, Manufacture Des Montres Jaguar. This was an appeal by Jaguar Cars against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, Kolkata, wherein he dismissed their opposition to Des Montres’ application for the registration of the trademark Jaguar for watches.  Jaguar Cars’ claimed that they owned the trademark Jaguar not only with respect to cars but also with respect to a

The Jaguar Trademark Conundrum Read More »

Scroll to Top