Demise of Sri. N. R. Subbaram, former Controller of Patents and Design

/ By / Uncategorized

SpicyIP is sad to report the demise of Sri. N. R. Subbaram, former Controller of Patents and Design and former head Intellectual Property Management Division, CSIR. He passed away on June 27, 2011 after a brief illness. Subbaram Sir was a noted IPR Consultant with expertise in patent law and policy. He headed the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research’s Intellectual Property Management Division for 13 years and played a pivotal role in challenging the turmeric patent and getting it […]

Demise of Sri. N. R. Subbaram, former Controller of Patents and Design Read More »

Consortium of six acquire Nortel’s patent portfolio

/ By / Patent

Google today missed out on acquiring bankrupt Nortel’s patent portfolio that was up for grabs.  Microsoft, Apple, RIM, EMC Corp., Ericsson and Sony edged out Google and bid $4.5BILLION to win the assets.  Yes, that is a billion with with a B.  In exchange for $4.5B, the consortium gets 6000 patents and patent applications covering mobile communications, 4G and 3G networks, data and voice networks, and others in optics and semiconductors.Google had started with an opening bid of $900 million

Consortium of six acquire Nortel’s patent portfolio Read More »

Kurian’s parting gift to the Trade Marks office – a CBI probe

/ By / Trademark

Unnikrishnan of the Mint has recently reported that the outgoing Controller General of India’s IP offices – Mr. P.H. Kurian, has requested the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a criminal investigation into allegations of corruption against certain officials of the trademark registry. Mr. Kurian has been quoted as stating that there was some information on how certain officials at the trade marks registry had been offering to speed-track certain files in return for illegal gratification. A public notice

Kurian’s parting gift to the Trade Marks office – a CBI probe Read More »

Should High Courts continue to exercise writ jurisdiction over the IPAB?

/ By / Uncategorized

As discussed in an earlier post, one of the peculiarities of the Indian tribunal system is that although it was setup to reduce the workload of cases pending at the High Courts, almost every order of these tribunals is appealed to High Court since the Supreme Court has held in the Chandra Kumar case that the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts is a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution and hence cannot be barred by the Parliament.

Should High Courts continue to exercise writ jurisdiction over the IPAB? Read More »

India ranks low on Innovation index

/ By / Innovation

Image taken from here The ‘decade of innovation‘ 2011-2020, seems to have not taken off on a great start if the Global Innovation Index (GII) 2011 edition is anything to go by. The GII ranked India 62nd out of 125 economies measured for innovation levels, marking a continual decline since the Index started in 2009 – India was 56 in 2010, and 41 in 2009. Switzerland topped this year’s list followed by Sweden and Singapore, while China was the highest ‘lower-middle’

India ranks low on Innovation index Read More »

IPRS continues to sue with impunity before Delhi High Court

/ By / Uncategorized

Despite the raging controversy and official investigation into the happenings at the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS), its management has been pushing ahead, with mixed success, several suits of copyright infringement before the Delhi High Court against entities across the country. Starting in January this year, when the Registrar of Copyrights officially initiated an inquiry against IPRS, the copyright society has filed as many as six suits for copyright infringement against alleged infringers ranging from the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association

IPRS continues to sue with impunity before Delhi High Court Read More »

Novartis v. Cipla: Cipla wins pre grant opposition (593/CHENP/2005)

/ By / Patent

Our patent office recently issued a decision in Cipla’s (Opponent) favor in a pre-grant opposition proceeding against Novartis (Applicant).  The opposition proceedings were brought under sections (25(1)(e),  (25(1)(f), and  (25(1)(h) of the Patents Act.  The Controller (Dr. Subramaniyan, Chennai office) decided the issue of novelty in favor of the Applicant, and  decided the issues of inventive step and non inventiveness (section 3) in favor of the opponent.  A brief introduction to the grounds is followed by our comments. Inventive step: The Controller

Novartis v. Cipla: Cipla wins pre grant opposition (593/CHENP/2005) Read More »

Do the Bombay & Delhi HCs violate SC guidelines while reviewing IPAB decisions?

/ By / Uncategorized

One of the peculiarities of the tribunalization process in the Indian legal setup is that all decisions of the tribunals can be reviewed by High Courts despite the fact that tribunals were setup in order to reduce the pendency of cases before High Courts. In all fairness to Parliament it had stated in some of the parents statutes of these tribunals that the jurisdiction of the High Courts would be excluded. However when the constitutionality of these legislations were challenged

Do the Bombay & Delhi HCs violate SC guidelines while reviewing IPAB decisions? Read More »

Delhi HC on remedies pertaining to trademark infringement and passing off

/ By / Trademark

In its judgment in M/S Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd. vs Mr. Raj Niwas, Proprietor of MHS, the Delhi High Court re-affirmed the differential evidentiary standards prescribed for trademark infringement and passing off. FACTS  The plaintiff uses the registered logo, MDH within three hexagon device on red colour background, in its business of manufacturing and selling spices & condiments. The aforesaid logo has been in use since 1949 in respect of various products such as “Kashmiri Mirch” and “Kasoori Methi”. Registered

Delhi HC on remedies pertaining to trademark infringement and passing off Read More »

Presumption of validity of a (an Indian) patent

/ By / Patent

Prashant had some time back written about the Indian patent and trademark adjudication process. While reading this post, I revisited the section on patent and TM validity as provided in our patent/TM act and rules. Unsurprisingly, the Indian patent law does not provide for a presumption of validity of a patent, whereas under the TM act, registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of its validity. Recently, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Microsoft v. i4i  case

Presumption of validity of a (an Indian) patent Read More »

Scroll to Top