Turning TRIPS on its Head: Developing Countries and WTO Cross Retaliation

/ By / Uncategorized

Prashant carried a very interesting post on Brazil’s latest WTO authorisation to cross retaliate against the US. Cross retaliation refers to the right to retaliate against another sector/agreement under the WTO, such as TRIPS. Unfortunately, Brazil’s authorisation to cross retaliate is a “qualified” one. And Brazil cannot resort to this unless the losses caused to it by the WTO inconsistent subsidies (maintained by the US) exceed a certain threshold. Brazil claims that the losses caused by the US amounted to […]

Turning TRIPS on its Head: Developing Countries and WTO Cross Retaliation Read More »

WTO rules in favour of Brazil, allows for cross retaliation against U.S. IPRs

/ By / Uncategorized

The WTO Arbitration Panel in the Brazil-U.S. trade dispute, regarding the U.S. Government subsidies for cotton, ruled last week that Brazil could retaliate against the U.S.A to the tune of $ 300 million dollars. This particular trade dispute has been running since the year 2002 and was decided in favour of Brazil in the year 2004. Thereafter the U.S.A. unsucessfully appealed the decision of the WTO Panel to the Appellate Authority. After winning before the Appellate Authority Brazil moved to

WTO rules in favour of Brazil, allows for cross retaliation against U.S. IPRs Read More »

Patent Office rejected Tenofovir: Celebrating Opporunity for Generic Manufacturers?

/ By / Uncategorized

Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) is a drug highly recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Till date, the medicine has been mostly marketed by Indian pharmaceutical companies through a voluntary licence scheme negotiated with the California-based Gilead Sciences few years back. Before the product patent regime had been introduced in India in 2005, the country allowed local generic manufacturers to sell cheap versions of Aids drug cocktails, known as antiretrovirals. According to an article penned

Patent Office rejected Tenofovir: Celebrating Opporunity for Generic Manufacturers? Read More »

Syngenta Misleads Indian Court on "Data Exclusivity" and Article 39.3 of TRIPS

/ By / Data Exclusivity

In a very interesting matter concerning the protection of regulatory data, Syngenta, a Swiss MNC argued before Justice Ravindra Bhat of the Delhi High Court that Article 39.3 of TRIPS mandates data exclusivity. This is sheer nonsense! Anyone with a fair understanding of Article 39.3 of TRIPS and its negotiating history would appreciate that it does not mandate “data exclusivity”. But first the facts of Syngenta India Ltd vs Union of India (W.P. (C) 8123/2008 ): Facts: Syngenta procured registration

Syngenta Misleads Indian Court on "Data Exclusivity" and Article 39.3 of TRIPS Read More »

NUJS Conference on Indian "Bayh Dole": Please Register Soon

/ By / Patent

As announced earlier, we have a full day conference on the proposed Indian “Bayh Dole” bill on the 12th of September. The final schedule is listed on the SpicyIP website. I want to thank Indrajeet Sarcar and Ashish Alexander, two brilliant “designer” students of NUJS for giving us such fabulous art work. Registration is free–and so is the lunch (challenging the prevailing economic assumption that “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”). But if you wish to attend,

NUJS Conference on Indian "Bayh Dole": Please Register Soon Read More »

From Ashes to Dust – War at the Nets…

/ By / Uncategorized

THE FACTS Earlier this year (in April), the English High Court found Bestnet Europe, a British company manufacturing mosquito nets and its executives liable for breach of confidence for having misused Vestergaard Frandsen’s (a Danish company) trade secrets. For more background information, Vestergaard Frandsen is a developer of leading products to prevent the spread of such diseases as malaria, diarrhoea and HIV. The company’s home page reads as follows:“…an international company specializing in complex emergency response and disease control products….

From Ashes to Dust – War at the Nets… Read More »

WIPO Rules in Tata’s Favour on Cyber-squatting

/ By / Uncategorized

In a decision delivered on the 25th of last month, WIPO ruled in favour of Tata sons requiring Gurgaon-based travel portal MakeMyTrip to transfer the domain oktatabyebye.com to Tata. On behalf of Tata, it was submitted that ‘TATA’ is a well-known and registered trademark and service mark over which Tata, being the registered proprietor had statutory rights as well as common law rights by virtue of a long and continuous use. Therefore, there was scope for confusion in the minds

WIPO Rules in Tata’s Favour on Cyber-squatting Read More »

Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law: Friends or Foes?

/ By / Competition Law, Innovation

In several previous posts, we have debated on aspects of the interaction of IP with competition law. These issues are all the more important in Indian intellectual property now, with the coming into force of several provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. The possibility of tensions between IP and competition law seems to have been present in the mind of the legislature, when it made some IP-specific exceptions in Section 3(5) of the Act. Among the important questions which are

Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law: Friends or Foes? Read More »

Strange Twist in the Novartis Glivec Case: Justice Katju Recuses Himself

/ By / Uncategorized

The Novartis Glivec saga took a rather strange twist at the Supreme Court, with Justice Markandey Katju recusing himself from hearing the matter. As noted in a previous blog post, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) held, in what could only be termed as a flight of legal fancy, that since the price of Glivec was too high, it was against “public order” and therefore a patent ought not to be granted in favour of Novartis! It also ruled against

Strange Twist in the Novartis Glivec Case: Justice Katju Recuses Himself Read More »

A "Spurious" Definition: Need to Amend the Drug and Cosmetics Act

/ By / Drug Regulation

As many of you know, the latest amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act came into force on August 10, 2009 vide Central Government notification no. S.O.2076(E). This bill was first introduced in Parliament in December 2003. It was passed as the (Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act, 2008) by both Houses in October 2008 and received Presidential assent in December 2008. The fact that this 2008 amendment provides for increased penalties for trafficking in spurious drugs is laudable; however, the

A "Spurious" Definition: Need to Amend the Drug and Cosmetics Act Read More »

Scroll to Top