Bata sho(o)ed out of Court – No defamation says Delhi HC

/ By / Uncategorized

Warning, several intended shoe puns have been weaved into this post. Recently, Justice Gambhir of the Delhi High Court in an extensive decision (of about 70 pages) held that the use of the word Bata in the song Mehangai in Prakash Jha’s new movie Chakravyuh was impermissible. In record time, this judgment has been overruled by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and Bata has been booted out of court. The Bench through presiding judge, Justice Nandrajog has made some rather […]

Bata sho(o)ed out of Court – No defamation says Delhi HC Read More »

Sugen’s desperate attempt to save its Sunitinib patent

/ By / Uncategorized

Seven years after the enactment of the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2005, India continues to struggle with the absolute basics of its post-grant opposition mechanism. As our readers may already be aware, the Patent Office recently revoked the patent for Sunitinib.  Although the patent has been identified in the media as a Pfizer patent, Pfizer is only the licensee. The patent is actually owned by Sugen Inc & Pharmacia & Upjohn. In its Form 27 filing with the patent office in

Sugen’s desperate attempt to save its Sunitinib patent Read More »

Internet Fraud: Bogus Open Access Journals

/ By / Uncategorized

Another ingenious internet fraud is on the rise – fraud committed in the name of Open Access (“OA”) journals. Unlike subscription-based journals, OA journals are those which are freely accessible online.  The business model revolves around the author-pay mode — where researchers pay for publishing their work. [The Hindu report is available here.]   Broadly speaking, the modus operandi is to send mails to researchers and scientists soliciting manuscripts. They try to entice researchers by keeping the processing fee low.

Internet Fraud: Bogus Open Access Journals Read More »

Guest Post: Bayer-Natco decision TRIPS Compliant?

/ By / Uncategorized

The Bayer-Natco decision broke ground as the first compulsory license earlier this year, and last month Bayer’s appeal was dismissed by the IPAB. Dr Enrico Bonadio sent us a commentary he published in the current issue of the European Intellectual Property Review, questioning the TRIPs compliancy of the ruling. Dr Bonadio is a lecturer of IP and EU law at The City Law School University, London and was practicing as an IP attorney in top tier international firms for several years. His

Guest Post: Bayer-Natco decision TRIPS Compliant? Read More »

Guest Post: ‘Xerox’ is not Generic…….Yet?!

/ By / Trademark

As we had mentioned in passing a few weeks ago, Xerox Corporation scored a major victory before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which dismissed several petitions by a Chennai based photocopy shop to declare the ‘Xerox’ trademark a generic mark thereby disqualifying it for trademark protection. Given the sheer volume of evidence presented by the petitioner, the judgment of the IPAB was a hard fought victory for Xerox and its lawyer, Shwestasree Majumdar. The judgment can be read over

Guest Post: ‘Xerox’ is not Generic…….Yet?! Read More »

Spicy IP Weekly Review (October Week 2)

/ By / Others

This week (October 8-14) has seen quite a few happenings in the IP scenario in and out of the country and as many as 12 posts in the blog.   IPAB Appointment Controversy It started with Prashant covering the Delhi High Court judgment of Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal v. Union of India, which dealt with the controversies surrounding the IPAB appointments. In this matter, which was primarily about the suitability of candidature of Mr. Chaswal, the court had ruled against the

Spicy IP Weekly Review (October Week 2) Read More »

Roche vs Cipla: A Patent Disappointment?

/ By / Patent

Given that the recent Roche vs Cipla decision was effectively India’s first post trial pharma patent ruling in a post TRIPS world, one might be forgiven for expecting a lot. Sadly, it disappointed…on several fronts. As I’d noted in an earlier post, the ruling suffers from serious jurisprudential flaws, with the Delhi High court effectively conflating issues of validity and infringement. A Mint article by CH Unnikrishnan encapsulates my views as below: “While many of us are happy about the

Roche vs Cipla: A Patent Disappointment? Read More »

Ever participated in a clinical trial? Perhaps.

/ By / Drug Regulation, Patent

The Supreme Court recently came down very heavily on the government about the lack of transparency in the manner in which clinical trials are conducted in our country. These observations were made during the hearing of a PIL (which the Supreme Court seems to be entertaining in increasing numbers!) filed by an NGO from Madhya Pradesh. For the section of our readers unfamiliar with what clinical trials are and how they work, clinical trials are a part of the R&D

Ever participated in a clinical trial? Perhaps. Read More »

An anonymous comment in response to the DU Campaign against copyright law & publishers

/ By / Copyright

In response to the guest post by Chandana Anusha on the DU event – Who’s afraid of Copyright?, we received what has to be one of the most insightful comments that we ever received on the blog, so much so that it deserves to be published as an independent post on this blog. Unfortunately, the author of the comment has chosen to be anonymous and I’ve been unable to track him or her down despite my best guesses. In any

An anonymous comment in response to the DU Campaign against copyright law & publishers Read More »

A test case for India’s new safe harbour provision: AGS Entertainment v. 37 ISPs

/ By / Copyright

In the first of its kind case, after the enactment of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 the Madras High Court has passed an interim injunction against 37 Internet Service Providers in a qua-timet action by the producers of “Maattrraan/Brothers”, a Tamil movie starring Surya playing the role of conjoined twins. The plaintiff-producers were represented by A.A. Mohan and Associates.  A qua-timet action, is typically filed even before the infringement has taken place, on the apprehension that such infringement is going

A test case for India’s new safe harbour provision: AGS Entertainment v. 37 ISPs Read More »

Scroll to Top