Copyright

SpicyIP Poll: Does the Name "Hari Puttar" Make You Think of "Harry Potter"?


I’m assuming that most of our readers are familiar with the Harry Potter vs Hari Puttar controversy before the Delhi High Court. Justice Reva Khetrapal is expected to issue her decision any day now. For those that came in late, do check out Sumathi’s well researched posts on this big ticket litigation, that is expected to delineate the scope of “trademark” rights over movie titles. Prashant also raised a very interesting “free speech” issue in his post here. Article 19(1)…


Read More »
Innovation

Making India Innovative: A New Indian Innovation Act?


Close on the heels of a Bayh Dole type bill that we have been blogging about, the government is considering introducing an “Innovation Act”. News reports regarding this legislation began pouring in since 2007. See this FICCI press release here and this Economic Times Report which announced this legislative endeavour on Sept 11, 2007. The ET report noted that: ““We want to bring in an India Innovation Act to spur innovation in India, for which we would like Ficci (Federation…


Read More »
Trademark

Potter/Puttar arguments come to a close


After Prashant’s engaging post on Potter, parodies, and the right to laugh, here’s a quick update on the Hari Puttar case, for those of you who are still keen on following the developments. Arguments concluded earlier this week, after the defendants (Mirchi Movies et al) attempted to establish that there was evident dissimilarity in the two titles in question. Indeed, the defense argued that there ought to be different tests for film titles and trademarks, especially keeping in mind the…


Read More »
Trademark

Delhi High Court considers questions of IP Jurisdiction in Banyan Tree case: Omnipresent or still rooted??


Just when Indian IP started to move towards complex questions and policy decisions, the Banyan Tree case heard by the Delhi High Court comes along to address basic questions of jurisdiction. The case revolves around the decision of the appropriate forum for a case to be heard in the cases of jurisdiction where the cause of action lies on the World Wide Web. The case that was brought before Justice Bhat of the Delhi High Court is straightforward, and the…


Read More »
Copyright

DRMs for Games too


A recent post by our friends at IPKAT on games + DRMs (Digital Rights Management) piqued my curiousity and had me heading towards google for more information on the topic (A few months ago, SpicyIP carried a post on DRMs as well). As it turns out, gamers are reacting very strongly against a move by Electronic Arts to incorporate a new DRM copyright protection system in their new game “Spore” which doesn’t allow more than 3 installations of the game….


Read More »
Trademark

Barry Trotter, Hairy Potty & the Free Speech Defense to Trademark Infringement


Over the last week or so Sumathi’s incisive posts, on the issue of Warner Bros suing the makers of Hari Puttar for trademark infringement, have had me thinking over some of the issues associated with parodies. Over the years J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series has spurned more than its fair share of literary parodies. In fact Wikipedia has a full article dedicated to the various parodies of Harry Potter. The ones that caught my attention were Barry Trotter and The Shameless…


Read More »

India’s Bayh Dole Bill: A Stitch in Haste Leads to Waste


SciDev.Net (Science and Development Network), a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to providing reliable and authoritative information about science and technology for the developing world, commissioned me to write a short note on India’s Bayh Dole bill, which I reproduce below. We’ve been tracking this bill for a while now, and despite our best efforts (and those of several leading journalists in India who have covered this issue), the government continues to keep this bill a “secret”. Indian patent bill: Let’s not…


Read More »
Patent

J Mitra v. Controller of Patents: Patently Confusing!


The Business Standard carries a report on a case (J Mitra & Co. v. Asst. Controller of Patents SLP No. 15729 of 2008) that Shamnad had brought to my notice some time back… I’m therefore clubbing my analysis of the case with the report: The facts of this case are best understood in tabular form (given the number of dates involved). In short however, the facts are as quite simple. J Mitra filed for a patent and after the patent…


Read More »
Trademark

Hari Puttar: the saga continues


Arguments in the Hari Puttar/Harry Potter case have been continuing over the past three days. The plaintiffs (Warner Bros.) have ended their arguments, and the defendants (Mirchi Movies et al) began on Thursday. A brief overview of what has ensued thus far follows. The petitioner’s case, as pointed out in a response to comments made in the previous post, is on grounds of the doctrine of Initial Interest Confusion. The general doctrine is premised upon ‘the use of another’s trademark…


Read More »
Trademark

Mere filing does not constitute Cause of Action in Passing off


In a recent dismissal (5th Aug) of an application for Special Leave to Appeal, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the mere filing of an application for registration of a Trade Mark does not constitute cause of action in a suit for passing off. The appeal [K. Narayanan and Anr. v. S Murali, Civil Appeal Nos. 4480-4481 of 2002] was filed against the decision of the High Court of Madras on the 18th of April, 2002. The facts in brief…


Read More »