In ACTA India does (not) trust

/ By / Uncategorized

(Image taken from here) Recent developments indicate that India’s desire to strive to build a united front against the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (for previous posts, see here) being negotiated by some developed countries remains unabated with time. The said agreement can have harmful repercussions on exports of genuine off-patent drugs, information technology and other products from emerging markets. Proposed between the EU, the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Switzerland, the purpose of ACTA is to enhance […]

In ACTA India does (not) trust Read More »

Non-Conventional Trademarks in India by Dev Gangjee

/ By / Trademark

Those of you looking for that extra spicy bite in law of trademarks,here is a treat. Dev Gangjee of London School of Economics has recently penned his thoughts on Non-Conventional Trade Marks in India  [22 (1) National Law School of India Review 67 (2010)] on the accommodation of non conventional trade marks within Indian trade mark law. Its written with trade mark examiners, IP practitioners and adjudicators in mind and considers relevant provisions of the Draft Manual of Trade Mark

Non-Conventional Trademarks in India by Dev Gangjee Read More »

Laawaris and Poetic Justice

/ By / Copyright

Sumathi blogged extensively and eruditely on the Laawaris controversy. The appellate judgment (albeit an interim one) by Justice Shah and Justice Sengupta of the Kolkata High Court is out now and Shayonee will bring you a detailed post on this soon. In the meantime, here is an interesting issue. Kalyanji Anandji’s lawyers claim as below: “…. Prakash Mehra had copyright only in …. the sound recording of the songs in the said film, but Prakash Mehra had no right in

Laawaris and Poetic Justice Read More »

Welcoming the India Law Journal

/ By / Patent, Publication

Just came across a wonderful initiative by two enterprising students, Vikrant and Naina Pachnanda of GNLU and NUJS respectively. They have put together an online law journal called the “India Law Journal” that boasts a wide assortment of articles on a variety of legal themes. In particular, they have some interesting IP articles including one on nanotechnology and patents. Please join me in congratulating these proactive siblings on this laudable venture.

Welcoming the India Law Journal Read More »

Vacancy at FICCI-IPR Division

/ By / Uncategorized

Intellectual Property Rights Division at FICCI is intensively involved in issues pertaining to protection and enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. It has taken a lead role in raising awareness on Intellectual Property Rights amongst the citizens of India along with various capacity building and training programmes for the industry, judiciary and enforcement agencies. Further, the IPR division is a platform for continuous interaction between the industry and the Government with a view to provide an interface for the businesses to

Vacancy at FICCI-IPR Division Read More »

“Person Interested”: How is an Inclusive Definition to be interpreted?

/ By / Patent

In an earlier post, Kruttika initiated a thought-provoking discussion on certain lesser discussed aspects of Justice Murlidhar’s decision on appealability of pre-grant decisions. In the comments, the discussion ultimately veered towards the distinction between “any person” under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act and “a person interested” under Section 25(2) with the former referring to pre-grant opposition and the latter, post-grant.  The questions raised as part of the comments were: 1.      1. Is “any person” under s.25(1) the same as

“Person Interested”: How is an Inclusive Definition to be interpreted? Read More »

“Informal” India and the Romanticisation of Innovation

/ By / Innovation, Patent

FICCI’s latest newsletter carried an article of mine dealing with grassroots innovation and the need to romanticise innovation. For those interested, here is the text: “Informal” India and the Romanticisation of Innovation3 idiots, one of the most tasteful Bollywood flicks this year, was embroiled in a “copyright” controversy involving credits to Chetan Bhagat, the author of the book on which the movie was allegedly based. What has been largely missed, however, is the ‘patent’ significance of the movie. The mysterious

“Informal” India and the Romanticisation of Innovation Read More »

Debating the law of patent opposition: An appeal by any other name would smell just as sweet?

/ By / Patent

As our regular readers are aware, we have done several posts on the Patent Office, the Patent Office procedures, and more recently decisions of Courts that affect the Patent Office procedure. The UCB Farchim decision delivered by Justice S. Muralidhar is one of them [UCB Farchim SA Vs. Cipla Ltd & Others (MANU/DE/0297/2010)]. While I will not go into a more detailed analysis of the order (that has already been done here, here and here– phew!), I will paraphrase the

Debating the law of patent opposition: An appeal by any other name would smell just as sweet? Read More »

M.S.M. Satellite v. Star Cable Network: Piracy receives yet another ‘interim’ blow

/ By / Uncategorized

(Image taken from here) In the case of M.S.M. Satellite Singapore Pte Ltd. v Star Cable Network & Others [F.A.O. (OS) 211/2010] the Appellant M.S.M. had a wholely-owned-subsidiary Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd., which in turn had a distributor M.S.M. Discovery Pvt. Ltd., having the exclusive distribution rights over the Sony Set Max Channel in India. The Appellant had acquired “entertainment software” for distributing and broadcasting signals of channels such as Sony Entertainment (Max and SAB) and had also signed

M.S.M. Satellite v. Star Cable Network: Piracy receives yet another ‘interim’ blow Read More »

M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd: Jurisdiction ‘Designed’ to err?

/ By / Design

(Image taken from here) This case involves an appeal filed against an order of the Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata under Section 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, canceling registered designs for “Insecticide Coil” in Class 12 belonging to the Respondent Reckitt Benckiser. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the Delhi High Court, wherein the appeal had been filed, had the jurisdiction to entertain the same. The Appellant was a company against whom the Respondent had brought a

M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd: Jurisdiction ‘Designed’ to err? Read More »

Scroll to Top